Talk:John Howard/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Photo of Howard bust

A pity because someone went to the effort, but I believe a photo of a Howard bust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image%3AJohn_Howard_bust.jpg is a photo of copyrighted art and so is a "deriviative work". If I am correct, then there are copyright issues and it will need to be removed. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons%3ADerivative_works Peter Ballard (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Photographs of buildings and artworks in public spaces: Those are derivative works, but they may be OK, if the artwork is permanently installed (which means, it is there to stay, not to be removed after a certain time), and in some countries if you are on public ground while taking the picture. Check Commons:Freedom of panorama if your country has a liberal policy on this exception and learn more about freedom of panorama. (Note that in most countries, freedom of panorama does not cover two-dimensional artworks such as murals.)" [1]

Australia: "Freedom of Panorama is dealt with in the Australian Copyright Act, sections 65-68. These sections allow photographers to take pictures of buildings and also of sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship provided that they are permanently located in a public place or in premises open to the public. It is also permitted to publish such pictures (section 68). Australian law is modelled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary is is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical. See the United Kingdom section for more details."[2]

United Kingdom: "Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is much broader than the corresponding provisions in many other countries, and allows photographers to take pictures of

• buildings, and

• sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public).

without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way..."[3]

Hope the above clarifies it for you Peter. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 13:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you're right. It's just that I've seen the argument raised before (in that case there were other problems with the sculpure so the copyright question became a non-issue), and thought I'd better raise it here. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

no worries thank you for raising it, as you said I put a bit of work into it so it is important that issues are raised early, acknowledgement to timeshift for created a whole article on it :) I was a little surprised that there wasn't already one. repWikiTownsvillian 04:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good photo. I'm glad it can stay. Lester 06:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1998 Election section

In discussing the closeness of the 1998 Bennelong results we find this:

"It was unheard of in Australian politics for a sitting prime minister to not win outright victory on the first count."

As Stanley Bruce lost his seat in 1929, it is hardly "unheard of". How often has it actually happened that a sitting PM needed preferences to hold his seat? Molinari (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And in any case he won it comfortably 56-44 on 2PP.[4] The seat was never in doubt so I removed the comment as pointless. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just removed the edit again. Note that the ABC election tallying (during the count) calls Bennelong "safe". [5] Peter Ballard (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That section mentions "two" main issues in the campaign - the GST stated as one. What is the other? --Merbabu (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson. I think it got deleted because, while she factored, the GST overshadowed everything. The ABC has a pretty decent archive at http://www.abc.net.au/election98/default.htm Peter Ballard (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone lose their seat other than in a Federal election?

User:Shot info recently did a tidying-up edit re Howard's defeat in 2007. The text had read "...making him just the second Australian Prime Minister, after Stanley Bruce in 1929, to lose his own seat in a Federal election." Shot Info deleted the last four words, and justified it by asking rhetorically "Are there Prime Minsters who lose their seats in a non-Federal Election????"

I think the edit is fine but, technically, a Prime Minister could lose his seat in at least several other ways:

1) a redistribution leaving him or her 'homeless' (like the sadly-missed Peter Andren)

Then he'd either (a) gain preselection for a different seat, and contest that seat at the election. If he loses, we're back to square 1; or (b) retire from parliament, which is not the same as losing one's seat (even if forced by circumstance to retire earlier than he had planned to).

2) an irregularity in his or her election leading to a legal defeat in the High Court sitting as either the High Court or as the Court of Disputed Returns

This is legally equivalent to losing his seat on election day. The new member would be installed retrospective to election day.

3) disqualification under either Section 44 or 45 of the Constitution (eg. serious criminal conviction, bankrupcy).

4) (improbable but not technically impossible) losing party preselection for the seat - though they could of course still stand as an independent.

... and if they lose, then it's square 1.

I suspect that losing party preselection is the legal equivalent of retiring (which presumably then ought to be another way of "losing" the seat) since he wouldn't actually then stand for the seat at all (assuming not as an independent). (But I am not a political expert.) Mitch Ames (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

5) Dying in office, (eg Harold_Holt) Mitch Ames (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is hardly in the category of "losing his own seat", but more "losing his own life".

But he does still lose the seat, in the sense that he had it before, and now he does not. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers everyone! hamiltonstone (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I thought the edit was quite poor especially given that the reasons for the seat loss are explained in the article. So why the need for it to be reiterated? Shot info (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Sorry - I meant i thought your edit was fine, Shot, not the pre-existing text. My point was that, although technically there are other ways for an MP to lose their seat, I nevertheless agreed that the text you excised was redundant in the broader scheme of things. I was just putting up the list of other ways a seat could be lost as background info in case anyone else wanted to argue the toss. But you'll get no argument from me. Cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Opps, sorry about that. For some reason I thought you were defending the edit previous to mine. Please accept my apologies for this. Shot info (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made some late comments against Hamilstone's 5 points above. I think the only valid point is (3) disqualification. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

1998 Bennelong Preferences information deleted

The information about the seat of Bennelong going down to the wire with preferences in 1998 was deleted in this edit without discussion. Editors should not take it upon themselves to unilaterally delete information like this. That is why we have discussion pages, for the community to decide if it is relevant or not.Lester 09:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I take issue with "no news articles talk about the specific fact, thus it isn't noteable" line. One good example is the 2007 election - just because (that I know of) no news articles talk about the informal Senate vote being the lowest since federation, doesn't make it non noteable. Timeshift (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The community may or may not find it relevant, but I thought it was an interesting fact that Bennelong was so close the previous time. If someone doesn't like recently added information, they should start a discussion about it first so others can view it and respond.Lester 09:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed above at #1998 Election section. I'll repeat what I said there. He won it comfortably, and the ABC election tallying (during the count) calls Bennelong "safe". [6]. There is an extensive ABC 1998 election at http://www.abc.net.au/election98/default.htm and I'd be surprised if the alleged closeness of Bennelong figured as a news story at all. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What was discussed before was a different issue, a previous line about whether there was a general opinion that the seat was "in doubt". The current information that was deleted was about the fact that Howard required preferences to win his seat. If you dispute the fact as untrue, then let us know. But I fail to see how it is not relevant to a section about Howard and the election.Lester 12:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's my take ... from what little I know about Australian politics, it's VERY unusual for a sitting prime minister to have to go to preferences at all to win his own seat. Let alone the ninth count. I've since found out (contrary to my previous digging) only happened one other time prior to Howard--in '90, when Bob Hawke only got 48.7 percent on the first count in his own electorate and had to wait until the sixth count to be elected. So we're looking at only four instances that a sitting prime minister has had to go to preferences to be assured of victory, and three of them from only one incumbent--very unusual.Blueboy96 15:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Has anyone actually checked the literature (political journals, etc) to see if this has been discussed anywhere? Orderinchaos 23:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, like always sources are good, sources other than the SMH (which seems rather one-city-centric in it's op-ed pieces so I'm starting to doubt it's use as a RS wrt JH - in his role as PM that it, just for some clarity). Shot info (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A seat can be totally safe even if it goes to preferences. Commentary on how often this happens to existing PMs is definitely OR. Good luck finding an RS commenting on it, because the RSs understand that, as I said, a seat can be totally safe even if it goes to preferences. My kids wonder if we now have the first ever world leader called "Kevin". Should we research that and put the (indisputable) facts in the Rudd article? Peter Ballard (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bush

I'm fascinated that the right have managed to scrub the entire article of any reference to Bush, images excluded. Anyway, is this image worthy of adding and if so, where? Timeshift (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know.. but since his relationship to President Bush was a pivotal factor in his Prime Ministership (and almost certainly, his downfall), it's curious that the only mention of it seems to be in photographs. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 14:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, i've had those same people try to remove images from time to time... Timeshift (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an equivalent "group" of editors patrolling the Labor Party / Rudd articles, ready to delete referenced information seconds after it has been added. It's a shame that information about Howard's warm relationship with Bush has been deleted. Regarding the photo, it's an interesting photo, but Howard is not obvious in it. I think there would be better photos that more closely represent the Howard + Bush warmth (down on the ranch, maybe?). Lester 23:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The image isn't for that purpose. It's an image of a major event, the same event where Kerry Nettle was told to fuck off and die in parliament. Timeshift (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a question for WP newbies, lets look at that source used to support that comment, and using WP:RS particularly the section on primary source, and right an essay explaining original research. Very good class, here it is WP:SYN. Shot info (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there need to be sources for starters. But yes, the eeeeevil "right" is actively patrolling Wikipedia....never forget that. And I'm sure they have everybodies names and addresses as well :-) Shot info (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Change is to was. Note the mass exodus after 24 November 2007. But they'll be back. Timeshift (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I can only speculate who "they" are. FWIW we all did discuss that the "noise" would die down after your election, and hey-presto, it did. Now I wonder what it is that your are assuming, I wonder if it is good faith?  :-) Shot info (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My election? And no, i'm not assuming good faith (and you're no angel), oh no call the policy police. Timeshift (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You are an Australian no? So, Australian election = your election? WRT AGF: Well, as long as you admit it and are clear that you are not engaging in it. After all, it isn't the first lot of policy that you are having problems with, so you may as well add some more to the list :-) Shot info (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure reflecting on others actions rather than article improvements is also a policy no-no somewhere... just another to add to your list. Now how about we move on to something constructive eh? Timeshift (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You got it [7], [8], perhaps starting constructively instead of ponificating, then moving onto it is the next logical step? Shot info (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And I continue to fully support those comments as relevant and worthy of discussion. I just came across a new image repository and got some excellent ones up. Being constructive is a good thing, pity more don't do it. Timeshift (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Move

Is it too early to move this page to "John Howard (Australian Politician)" or "John Winston Howard"? Albatross2147 (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't ever support moving Howard to another page. It will take quite a while (if ever) for a more significant John Howard than Howard to take the principle wikipedia page of John Howard. Timeshift (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't count on it - any american big brother contestant (or similar) named John Howard will be deemed more notable. lol --Merbabu (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability is defined as being "worthy of note", not numbers, or name recognition. So no, I don't think this page should be moved.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Howard absent from Sorry Day

Someone has reverted the article (here) and deleted the reference to Howard being absent from the National Apology to the Stolen Generation. Howard had been invited, but declined. The information carried a newspaper citation. Unfortunately, the editor who reverted the article didn't wish to start a discussion to involve the community in this debate. Therefore, I will revert the previous reversion of this information. I expect it to be discussed here, with time for community comment, before ny further deletions occur. Thanks, Lester 04:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lester, I agree with the revision. This is a BLP remember, the sentence doesn't match the reference. In fact the only thing from the reference that is in the sentence is that Howard didn't attend. So what do we do when an unsourced addition is made to a BLP. It is removed. Shot info (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me if it's there or not (I'm not a regular editor of this article), but can you please remove "living" from the paragraph? No one expects dead former prime ministers to show up. ;) Somno (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

POVpushers do... Shot info (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if a dead former prime minister *did* show up, I would expect that to be added to their article. That would definitely be worth noting. :) Somno (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there is something in the SMH which could be dug up to support that one or more Australian political figures where in fact, members of the living dead :-) Shot info (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a serious issue. I assume people are here to delete information about Howard that they consider may make him look bad. In doing so, they delete an historic moment in Australia's history, for the sake of cleansing Howard's image. It's not very often that all living Prime Ministers are lined up. Well, all but one. It was an important historic moment that the other PMs were all there, and notable that Howard was absent. Howard was, in fact, taking a morning stroll, and later went to his Sydney office to do some paperwork, according to The Age. There is nothing POV about the original sentence which said that Howard was the only living PM absent. It should be restored immediately.Lester 05:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Howard not attending "Sorry Day" is a positive thing to his supporters and a negative thing to his detractors. To state that he was absent from the Parliament when the apology was read is perfectly neutral; adding on junk and opinion from observers is not. So if someone wishes to edit the article, simply say that Howard did not attend the opening of the Parliament and therefore did not hear Rudd's sorry speech. End of story. Michael ^talk 05:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why, then, is the section which said he was the only living PM not to attend... considered "POV"?Lester 05:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it singles him out negatively — "was the only one not to attend..." — like it was an inherently bad thing, and, as we all know, one's view on this is inherently subjective. I just said I had no problems adding in that he did not attend, and that it happened to be "Sorry Day" too. Michael ^talk 05:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure he was the only one not to attend. I didn't see Fraser anywhere (although all we see is what the cameras picked up, not necessarily everyone who was there). And Hawke, who said he couldn't make it because of an unbreakable prior commitment but would be there in spirit, managed to turn up anyway. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fraser was there. In reply to 'Michael' (above): First, is the worry that information might make the subject look negative a reason for deletion? Is this a positive-only article? Second, I don't think the sentence about former PMs in itself was negative. If Howard was the only PM not to attend a lunch with Brian Burke, would that be negative or positive? The fact we said he was the only PM not to attend the national apology isn't in itself negative, unless the reader personally thinks so. By removing the reference to all other former PMs attending, we have deleted all the context.Lester 05:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr Howard was the only living former prime minister not to attend the formal apology Mr Rudd delivered in federal parliament today.[9] Timeshift (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral is neither negative nor positive. When you single Howard out on the spot like that, does our English language make it seem like a negative, positive, or neutral thing? It is decidedly a negative thing due to the wording used. I cannot right now think of a way to word it to avoid such triviality, and, as I have said twice now, I have no problem whatsoever with the article mentioning that Howard declined to attend Parliament for its opening, and therefore did not hear Rudd's sorry speech. Surely this is enough. Michael ^talk 06:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification about Fraser. On Howard, are we risking being a little precious here? It's not that we're "singling him out", Michael. He singled himself out by being the only one who chose not to come. If we say elsewhere that Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating turned up, and say here that Howard didn't, then surely it's going to be obvious to people who read more than one article that he was the only non-attendee, so what's the problem with saying just that. If Howard had been invited as a one-off, then whether he chose to come or not might not have been notable. But all living former PMs were invited, and he was conspicuous by his absence. People can make what they like of the fact of his absence, but it's not POV to merely state a fact that's been widely reported elsewhere anyway. If you want to avoid the language question because you think "only" is somehow negative, we could say "Howard did not attend the apology; all other living former Prime Ministers did". -- JackofOz (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

JofOz, firstly, I cannot see in the references where he was invited. Presumably he was, but I cannot see "he was invited, but declined" or something similar. But in saying that, I don't see why we don't have something simple, with no OR, just stating the facts. Unfortunately all the sources all just mention he didn't attend, then wander off into discussing something else. I personally don't really know how to get the OR out of the two facts, "Howard didn't attend the Opening of Parl." and "The PM apologised to the Stolen Gen, during the 2nd sitting of the 42nd Parl." (or something similar). --Shot info (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with OR to calculate that 5 possibilities minus 4 attendees = 1 non-attendee. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, did you read my comment? I don't believe I mentioned anything about 5 - 4 = 1. But at anyrate, yes, it is OR to make that sort of inference. It's like saying the sky is red, because it isn't black, green, purple or grey. Shot info (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of that alleged analogy. -- JackofOz (talk)

I am curious if Lester's comment I assume people are here to delete information about Howard that they consider may make him look bad is his version of Assume Good Faith? Should editors start assuming that because he is desperate to include material without sources, that he is interested in making Howard look bad? Is this valid? No, because we assume good faith and Lester, if you just stop with the assumptions, you might find that perhaps you would have better engagement with editors. Shot info (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly notable that Howard did not attend. All the news sources I have seen mention it. Howard is notable for not doing things. Like not keeping promises. Not realising Australia's participation in the Vietnam was was an error. Not joining up to the military even though he was keen on other mother's sons being forced to do so. Not saying sorry. Albatross2147 (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it chilly up there? Shot info (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your continual sniping comments are not constructive SI. Timeshift (talk) 08:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucky I'm not one of your "Liberals" then...hmmmm? Shot info (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your continual sniping comments are not constructive SI. Timeshift (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Irony is a noun that escapes you at times, doesn't it? Shot info (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, your continual sniping comments are not constructive SI. Timeshift (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, irony is a noun that escapes you at times. Shot info (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Knock it off, guys. If you want to take potshots at each other, take it to your talk pages, or, better yet, do it off-site. Sarah 11:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The wording still needs cleaning up. We are, in effect, saying that Howard was the only former PM not to attend the "Sorry Day" parliament, but we are beating around the bush to say it in more words than necessary, in an attempt not to single Howard out. The Australian and international media state he was the only living former PM not to attend, as could be seen in the supplied references (some have now been removed). We should do the same, and treat this subject as the outside media does. Incidentally, on the Wilson Tuckey info that has been added, there were actually 5 coalition MPs who did not attend. Regards, Lester 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, since Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, sometimes....just sometimes it's prudent to let the sources digest the information and then produce something we can reference....prior to inserting into an article. At the moment, we are suffering from a lack of detailed references informing us of the notability of this "act" and conflicted information (he was invited ... yes, no, everybody says yes, the sources don't agree). Etc. etc. So rather than fall over ourselves to get it right...NOW, why don't we wait for a week or two for the media to do the work? Shot info (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Keating attended, but nobody saw fit to include this information in his article. Because it wasn't notable. Can't see how Howard not attending is somehow more notable! --Pete (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a case of odd one out. Whitlam (ALP), Fraser (Lib), Hawke (ALP), and Keating (ALP) all attended. Read the above to see you're in the minority view. Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Millions of people didn't attend. Selecting a group just to mention Howard as the exception is contrived. --Pete (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) :Pete does have a point here - especially given that (correct me if I am wrong) Keating starting the whole ball rolling. I must admit, I'm wondering what the notability is. I understand there if it is notable (as I explain to Lester above) then the RS' eventually will tell us it is notable. Unfortunately at the moment it reads like a bit of trivia about something that Rudd did, and a bunch of others who attended something and then...eventually about the subject of the article...who actually didn't attend. Now if this is notable, we need the sources explaining the notability (which the supplied ones don't do, they just mention he stays away....trivial?). I would presume they will eventually appear so if we don't have the speculation in the BLP for the moment, the article really isn't going to suffer (cue accusations of whitewashing, liberal supporters, bad faith assumptions about editors, and other general soapboxing...). Shot info (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This is a biographical article on John Howard. Why insert a whole paragraph about an event that Howard didn't even attend? Howard's absence may be relevant to an article about the event, but not the other way around. --Pete (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What people don't do is sometimes just as significant as what they do do. We mention that, while he was PM, "Howard refrained from making a national apology ... and instead personally expressed "deep sorrow". Should this be changed to mentioning his personal expression of deep sorrow but not saying anything about his refusal to make any sort of apology? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The point being made is that this is an article, a biographical article, about John Howard. I realise some people feel strongly about this, but it seems to me that the only reason the original editor wanted to include John Howard's non-attendance was to include a paragraph about Kevin Rudd's apology in John Howard's article. --Pete (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you not assuming good faith? Thought i'd chime in before SI does. Sorry about no wikilink to the policy though. Timeshift (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a major flaw in the "delete the negative info because it's a BLP" argument. Too many times the BLP argument is used to justify the deletion of content from political articles. Such deletions would only be valid if there is the possibility of defamation or libel. BLP rules say nothing about removing controversy or only adding positive information about politicians. Nobody is questioning the fact that John Howard was the only living PM absent from Sorry Day. This little fact was world news, and local + international references were provided (now deleted). There is a real problem in Wikipedia political articles of certain editors deleting referenced material because they don't feel it adds to the positive image of the subject. Well cited information that is not disputed factually should remain in the article until there has been time for a full community discussion. Locking the article (on a version with all the information deleted) actually inhibits the discussion. A better alternative would be to unlock the article, and take a stand against editors who delete well referenced facts and sections of the article without bothering to initiate a discussion at the time of the reversion. This is where edit wars begin, and this is what admins should be taking a stand against, in all articles.Lester 13:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear!! Timeshift (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The question isn't whether John Howard was absent from Parliament when Rudd gave his speech. The question is why should there be a paragraph about Rudd's speech at all? This is an article about John Howard. --Pete (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Lester's comments. Generally the article seems deficient in its coverage of the sorry issue which may be regarded as one of the many major controversies of JH's prime ministership. The single paragraph gives no indication of the extent of the controversy and the strength of the campaign in favour of an apology that surrounded this issue. It is because this was a long running theme of his prime ministership that his absence on the day, together with the current leader of the opposition's support for the motion, is significant. Wm (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at our articles on other former Prime Ministers, their "life after politics" sections are devoted to actions they took or speeches they made, not things that they didn't do. I see no need to change our practice in this case. --Pete (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't be bothered finding the wiki policy stating the "other pages dont so this shouldnt" argument is invalid. Timeshift (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's simply dodging the issue. John Howard didn't attend this event, so including the event in his biographical article is a stretch. Seems to me that some here want to bang on about Kevin Rudd in the John Howard article. --Pete (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not dodging, it's shooting down irrelevant points. Timeshift (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's two responses and you haven't answered the question. If you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion, please don't disrupt those who do. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a question? Please don't tell contributors not to contribute. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This philosophy seems to explain why we say nothing about Howard's refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol. There was a brief discussion about in Talk Archive 3, but that seems to be the extent of debate about it here. Please correct me if I've overlooked anything significant. Given the amount of debate his policy position created in the Australian community, this seems an extraordinary omission from any encyclopedic article. And particularly in light of the fact that the very first official act, literally, that his successor made was to ratify the protocol. The same contrast also applies to the sorry statement, which was made on the very first full sitting day of parliament. It's not about political point scoring, but reflecting the wide disparity of views between Howard and whoever his successor was, and reflecting the amount of polarisation in the community that his positions on these and other issues engendered, which contributed in part to his defeat - all well referenced. The story of a Prime Minister's political career does not end on the day he leaves office. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

His refusal to ratify the protocol has been the subject of much debate. His absence from the set of countries in with Kyoto is possibly more significant than his presence. Ansell 23:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Howard was completely anti-saying sorry when he was prime minister. [10] The fact that someone named an article "All living ex-PMs there but one" removes all original research qualms that some people here have. If you attempt to ignore the fact that Howards continued rejection of saying it was an important factor then it appears that there is a neutrality issue. The issue is not that he stayed away from the speech, but that his campaign wasn't united in the end. If there isn't a paragraph about his behaviour in the issue than the encyclopedia is missing something IMO. The paragraph doesn't necessarily have to point out that he was the only one who was stubborn enough not to go, but it should point out at least that he wasn't there and utilise the many sources which reflect on that with respect to his past behaviour. Ansell 23:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the paragraph doesn't necessarily need to mention Kevin Rudd. We can say that Howard was the only living PM not to attend the national apology to the Stolen Generations (or something like that). The article should be unlocked, so that we have a work-in-progress that editors can contribute to.Lester 09:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote from The Australian: "John Howard was the only living ex-prime minister to skip yesterday's historic apology to indigenous Australia."
Quote from The Age: "Mr Fraser ... said it would make the apology more significant if former PMs were there to show their support."Lester 14:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem, once again, to have missed the point. There is no problem with finding good sources for Howard's non-attendance at Rudd's speech, but his absence is relevant to the event, not to this biographical article. I note also that Kevin Rudd's article has less material on the event than you want to include in this one, and that the Sorry Day article includes Rudd's speech, but makes no mention of who was or wasn't present.

May I suggest that if you are so all-fired-up to call an attendance roll, you do so in an appropriate article? You still haven't made any argument as to why this article should have a paragraph on an event Howard didn't attend, except that you'd personally like it to. I also note that there is no concensus for inclusion after a day or two of discussion. --Pete (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of the links to two articles in my previous post was not because I "missed the point", as you say, but to counter the previous claim that it is "OR" (original research) to say that Howard didn't attend Sorry Day. Howard's decision not to attend was world news, and every Australian paper ran stories devoted to that fact alone. Some devoted their cartoons to it. It's time we let all political articles in Wikipedia get both light and shade. Lester 23:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Howard not attending was a minor point. A sentence or two in pages of coverage. As any Australian editor can see for themselves. Howard not attending Rudd's speech is important only in the context of Rudd's speech. You don't seem to accept that point. You want Howard's article to contain more detail about Rudd's speech than Kevin Rudd's article. You want Howard's biographical article to contain a paragraph about an event that he didn't attend. And you are unable to explain why. --Pete (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If you (User:Skyring) had read the contribution below, rather than inserting your comment out of sequence, you'd find the explanation you seek (or is this a personal thing between you and User:Lester, where nothing anyone else says has any bearing?. Howard not attending parliament for the Prime Minister's Apology to the Stolen Generations on Behalf of The Parliaments and Governments of Australia is relevant to a biography about Howard because not apologizing was so important to Howard, so important that even when presented the opportunity to let bygones be bygones, Howard turned down the opportunity to be seen to be part of a historic moment for the country he served for so long, and for which he claimed to have such unbridled love. The facts are that as a living ex-PM, Howard was invited to join other living ex-PMs to be present, and he rejected the invitation. That is the fact that needs recording. Eyedubya (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever one's politics, any objective account of Howard's life must include information about his attitudes towards the issue of the stolen generations. His stance on the stolen generations was a central part of his public persona and objectively, was a defining element of his Prime Ministership. Whatever one may think about the issue of the stolen generations, it was an important issue for Howard. Howard engaged in a paradoxical position: On the one hand, saying sorry was merely 'symbolic' and of no material benefit, yet if it was only symbolic, then why not double the political kudos by adding symbolism to the 'practical' reconciliation policies he said he was interested in? Howard's ability to make the most of photo-opportunities at events whose only substantive value was 'symbolic' (e.g. cricket matches, the Sydney Olympics) was one of his most noteworthy practices. So when someone who is so highly attuned to the symbolic dimension turns down an invitation to attend an event of such national importance, it is relevant to his biography. In other words, the even that needs to be recorded in Howard's biography is his rejection of the invitation to attend. Thus, Howard's non-attendance at an event that was attended by all other living PMs constitutes a notable event relevant to this component of Howard's biography. His absence is as relevant to the event itself as it is to an article about his life, which is also necessarily an article about his politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyedubya (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone actually objecting besides usual suspects Shot Info and Skyring? Timeshift (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel like refactoring this per WP:CIVIL or would you rather it end up over at WP:ANI? Shot info (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Timeshift (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

:-), will have to give you a consensus barnstar then :-) Shot info (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's step back for a second. Does two editors not moving an inch constitute lack of consensus? If no, then perhaps we need to go to further means to stop their crusade. Timeshift (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Or three even, will be interesting to see if you have the intestinal fortitude to put your money where your mouth is :-) Shot info (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Howard and the stolen generations, the place of Indigenous Australians in the constitution, etc etc etc

Perhaps the issue of Howard's rejection of the invitation to join other living ex-PMs for the Apology to the Stolen Generations would be better dealt with under a section that deals more broadly with Howard's policy approach on indigenous Australians, as the current article is very superficial on this topic - to say (as the article now says) that Howard 'refrained' from apologizing is Weasel words. He is on record as saying that he didn't believe in apologzing for a variety of reasons, and its well-known that his party was deeply divided on this issue, so it behoves a serious encyclopedia to cover this issue in much greater detail. Eyedubya (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eyedubya, I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask if there was an invite for him to reject? I haven't seen anything in the actual references provided (to date) and I'm wondering if anybody has the actual link? Ta --Shot info (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this report, dated Feb 8, he had been asked by the press whether he would be attending and stated that: "I won't be in Canberra next week" but declined to answer further questions. Is there a reference that indicates that he wanted to attend and was prevented from doing so? Wm (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So, there we are, that settles it. That reference also provides some of the history of Howard's relationship with the issue of the apology, though of course a full WP entry on it would have a vast array of sources to draw upon. Its actually quite surprising that there is so little on HOward's indigenous policies, given the strength of his beliefs - whether one agrees with them or not, he has at least been clear where he stands. Perhaps the people who've been writing this page are too worried that HOward's views make him look bad? Why so? That betrays a sympathy for the opposing view, surely! Must be hard being objective when you're a fan. Eyedubya (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

... And here is how the issue was reported in the UK in the national press [[11]]. Howard's intending non-attendance is noted at the bottom of the article. Eyedubya (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The NZ Herald also devoted an article to Howard's non-attendance (for those who claim it is a non-notable event). Note also, that this article quotes Malcolm Fraser (before Sorry Day) publicly calling for all former PMs to attend. Looking back at all the comments above, there have been many editors who have commented, and the overwhelming majority support inclusion of a mention of Howard's non-attendance at Sorry Day, though some editors wish to debate the wording. The only editors to want complete omission of the information are 'Skyring(Pete)' and 'Shot info'. Reasons given by Skyring and Shot info for omission include 'not-notable', 'editors adding the information are POV pushers', 'the information is original research', 'breaches BLP rules', and 'Howard wasn't invited, so his absence should not be mentioned'. So they have provided 5 reasons they feel the information should be omitted.Lester 20:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I really cannot see how simply stating that Howard did not attend can be considered POV. Is this a political issue for some of us? How can it be 'original research'? No-one invented the fact. It is certainly noteworthy - no question of that. There have been almighty edit wars over facts far less important.--Gazzster (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I would respond to Lester as follows:

• not-notable - it has actually been written and talked about in hundreds of places in the media

Doesn't fit with even the most liberal definition of non-notable (ie, more than one independent source) Ansell 21:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• editors adding the information are POV pushers - the only POV is the POV that says that factual and sourced material can and should be included, particularly where it's been the subject of much commentary

Accusations about specific groups of editors who oppose ones view being POV are WP:CIVIL violations in my opinion and should not be part of the discussion at all. Ansell 21:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• the information is original research - see "Howard wasn't invited" below
• breaches BLP rules - it might cast Howard in a negative light in the eyes of some, but choosing to include only positive information about a living person is not the right approach. Please specify exactly which BLP rule would be breached.

Goes directly against NPOV to have any undue bias towards favourable material. Ansell 21:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Howard wasn't invited, so his absence should not be mentioned - it's possible he wasn't formally invited by the government, but Fraser certainly called on all ex-PMs to turn up. In that sense, he was most definitely 'invited', and chose not to attend. An invitation doesn't have to come from the person hosting the event. Whether Howard had a previous engagement or whatever is something we don't know, because he's made no public statement about the issue. But it's a fact that an invitation was issued and for whatever reason Howard did not come, and his absence was the subject of much media commentary. To record those facts is not original research. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

All of their concerns have been noted and reliable sources have been given to rebutt their opinions. It is worrying that they refer to POV pushing, without saying why it is right to have favourable material but not unfavourable material. BLP say nothing about referenced negative material. Negative light to me sounds like a partisan opinion, not an encyclopaedic neutral article. It has been established that it was not original research for some time now, but opposition to the fact are still able to claim that there is apparently not consensus after a few days of discussion. Also, claiming editors in general are POV pushers for inserting reliably referenced content is more uncivil than the comment which was objected to in the above section IMO, though pointing out said (or other) editors is not nice. Not notable has been clearly rebutted by national and international sources, and when combined with many references of the media asking him to say sorry when he was prime minister is clearly an issue worthy of his biographical article here.

This discussion is quite remarkable, if only because it is clearly a personal issue that Howard has had with saying sorry over a number of years as Prime Minister, followed by his choice not to say sorry when the rest of the country did it after he didn't make it back into parliament for the first time in 12 years. If the media aren't questioning whether Howard should have been there, why should wikipedia editors be performing original research to determine whether it should be questioned and not included here. Neutral editing based on sources anyone? Ansell 21:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know that Howard was not invited? It would be incredible that he would not be, especially if it would give Labor an opportunity to make him look bad and exacerbate divisions within the Opposition?--Gazzster (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Its POV to claim that there is only one possible interpretation of a fact such as Howard's absence - i.e. that it necessarily makes the man look bad. To his supporters and sympathisers, he probably did the right thing, and to them, this is yet another example of Howard having consistent, deeply-felt convictions that he is prepared to enact courageously in the face of populism. For Howard's fans, this kind of action is what made him a 'great man'. But then, to enable such interpretations to be possible, the facts of Howard's life need to be recorded. His absence at such a significant national event is an important fact in an encylcopedic biography about him. NPOV must mean that WP BLPs can't be hagiographies, such a reverential bias would be an extreme violation of this core principle. Eyedubya (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kindly point out to me where I said that there is 'only one possible interpretation of a fact such as Howard's absence - i.e. that it necessarily makes the man look bad.' I don't think you actually read my question properly.--Gazzster (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Eyedubya's original comment, "Perhaps the issue of Howard's rejection of the invitation to join other living ex-PMs for the Apology to the Stolen Generations would be better dealt with under a section that deals more broadly with Howard's policy approach on indigenous Australians". i.e., expand the issue of his non-apology, and as a postscript to that section note he did not attend Rudd's apology. The reason for this is I believe Howard's non-attendance was unremarkable - it would have been far more notable if he HAD attended - given his earlier stubborness on the issue. So his non-attendence deserves to be in the article, but fits better in a section on Howard and aboriginal issues. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Put it in the appropriate article, where Rudd's speech is significant, and Howard's absence notable. All in context. But as we see above, there is any amount of spurious argument and misdirection. Whether some see it as positive or negative is not the issue. The question is, why a biographical article on John Howard should even contain a paragraph devoted to a speech by Kevin Rudd. Which Howard didn't attend. Forget all the political talk, and look on it as encyclopaedia editors. --Pete (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggested a new section on Indigenous policy because its lacking - bar the section on the NT Intervention, which is not the sum total of Howard's thinking on this at all. Howard's non-attendance at the Apology has nothing to do with Kevin Rudd, it has everything to do with HOward's convictions about the symbolism of the Apology: Howard believed that to apologise would symbolise 'inter-generational guilt', and because he didn't believe in intergenerational guilt, he refused to apologise. HOwever, it has to be understood that this view of what the Apology symbolises is only one view, and it is not the view embodied in the actual wording of the Apology that was given last week. The Apology as given accepts responsibility on behalf of Australian Parliaments and Governments - not a specific race, ethnic or genetically related group that could be regarded as being 'intergenerationally' guilty by hereditary association. Howard's views on the symbolism of the Apology provide insight into the way that racialised thinking works, and how easily many, many people mistake a political process for a racial one. While none of this warrants coverage in a bio on Howard, it does explain why his non-attendance is an important part of his biography. Just imagine, as suggested, that Howard had attended. What would that symbolise? One thing that many would read into it is that he had changed his mind, found something new inside him. All very new age and warm and fuzzy. But it would also be read as him admitting to the very thing he denied he believed in - intergenerational (i.e. racial) guilt - a kind of 'White man's burden' sort of thing, which would leave all of those who share such a view left without a champion for their resistance. Just because the section is titled 'After politics', doesn't mean that HOward has suddenly become an apolitical being! Far from it! He's still an icon for his tribe, and its absolutely important that he's seen to continue to 'hold the line' on certain matters - 'intergenerational guilt' being one of them. Eyedubya (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We're writing an encylopaedia, not conducting a political debate. Your beliefs and your opinions aren't actually worth anything here. Nor are mine. --Pete (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't help thinking that some contributors are anxious to protect the ex-prime minister from possible criticism. I still do not understand: what the hell is wrong with saying: 'John Howard was the only ex-prime minister who did not attend Parliament that day?' It is a fact! No interpretation is drawn from it.--Gazzster (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I've missed something, but it seems to me that one of the main issues for those arguing against the inclusion of this fact is that it allows a negative interpretation, and that its WP policy (BLP) not to do so - at least that's the argument being put forward. There are also some who argue that its not about Howard enough, its more about Rudd, so therefore, doesn't warrant inclusion. For mine, both arguments are in error. Eyedubya (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

First rule of editing- there is no such thing as a neutral statement. Every edit, no matter how insignificant, has a POV. The question then becomes, how relevant or valid is the POV? The statement that John Howard did not attend Parliament on that significant day cannot avoid attracting POV. Neither, indeed, can the argument to ommit that statement. We then have to ask how significant is the imputation on either side? I suggest that the imputation about not accepting his invitation is very significant indeed.--Gazzster (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely! Eyedubya (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. What do you mean?--Gazzster (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this section of the discussion may have run its course, lest we become embroiled in the undecideability of any text. Eyedubya (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sins of commission or omission?

The idea that the sum-total of positive 'appearances' and 'actions' by anyone is the only material relevant to their biography is a very suspect idea indeed. Taken to its logical limit, it would mean a statistical analysis of all of the recorded appearances at public events in the person's life as a public figure. In which case, this article is sadly lacking. Surely, HOward's appearance at cricket matches and other sporting events, ANZAC day ceremonies and press calls are actually the statistically dominant 'events' of his life, and these are what this biography should record. It would be interesting to see what picture would emerge if this idea were applied rigourously.

However, on the basis of at least two discussions going on above, what's really needed in this article on Howard (and maybe other PMs as well) is a section on 'Politics by omission'. Such a section would cover all those notable policy areas where there was significant debate and the incumbent refused to act, or where others acted, and the action of the incumbent was to nullify others' policy implementation, or where others' acted. 'No change' can be brought about or symbolised by not-acting or by acting to render others' actions void. Howard was wont to deploy both of these 'non-actions' to maintain the status quo or even to allow aspects of the status quo to flourish. A section like this would collate instances currently listed within the article, and add relevant new ones. Examples would include not seeking some kind of sanction against Hanson after her maiden speech, not-signing Kyoto, not apologising to the Stolen Generations, invalidating state and territory laws to rectify discrimination against same-sex couples, invalidating NT laws on euthanasia, not attending various important global forums on climate change, and of course, not attending the national apology to the Stolen Generations despite a very public invitation to do so from his own side of politics. Eyedubya (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Or we could just wait and see what the verifiable reliable sources publish and use it in a biography of a living person?

And of course, HOward structured the referendum on an Australian Republic so that he could do both at once - he acted in such a way in order that nothing would happen, nothing would change. It is this kind of fact about Howard's skills as a politician which need recording in a biography, so that his time in office and all of his achievements, whether one likes them or not, can be understood. Eyedubya (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And what does Wikipedia policy tell us to do? Shot info (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Which policy in particular are you interested in knowing about? Unless you can be specifici, such a question's a bit like the proverbial piece of string ... Eyedubya (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You can add what you want, anything really but as long as it is backed up with V RS' suitable for a BLP. If they are drawn from acceptable sources, I don't see why they are not acceptable. One quibble however, normally people are notable for what they do, as opposed for what they don't do. Surely it's easier on biographies to do it this way rather than saying "John Howard didn't go to the moon. John Howard didn't win gold at the 1972, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92, 96, 2000, 04 Olympics. John Howard hasn't applied for a sex change operation." etc. etc. Sure these are ridiculous examples (as they are meant to be) but they are meant to show that it's a little easier, biographical and within policy to kind of keep it to what the subject is notable for? Shot info (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither did any of our 26 PMs. Or all of our living PMs. But I do know of one event all our living PMs went to. Oh, except one, noted in many places on many news sites. Some people just don't get it... Timeshift (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to stick to the subject thread TS, just to stay relevant, rather than not getting it. Shot info (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Who's discussing moon travel, olympics, and sex changes? Timeshift (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As befits "nonactions", you know, what is being discussed above? Probably better for the discussion if you look at the rest of the thread before continuing. Shot info (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And of course moon travel, olympics, and sex changes are in the same ballpark as attending parliament for sorry day, as all living PM/former PMs did, bar one... Timeshift (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Focus TS, take some deep breaths, concentrate...focus, you can do it... Shot info (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone for CIVILITY? I wonder who it is that's not getting it here? Perhaps Shot Infor ought to read the preceding more carefully before attempting to chasten others! How very ironic ... anyway ... there is plenty written above that rebuts the issue of people being notable for what they do. But to re-iterate, sometimes its what people don't do that makes them notable. Such not doings that are notable are not attending events where one's attendance was requested or where it would be seen to say something either one way or another by one's attendance or non-attendance. or, to not act when there are calls to act, or not say something when there are calls to say something. So, not censuring Hanson's maiden speech was a significant lack of action by HOward that was noted not only by Australia's national press, but many overseas. Many people did say lots of things about Hanson, and many said nothing, but one of the few people who's lack of action in relation to the speech actually had significance, was that of John Howard. And this has nothing to do whether you think Hanson had a point, whether she was right, whether HOward was right - the issue that was notable was that he refused to do something, and that refusal to do something was more powerful politically than what he did do which was say very little. Not doing things is one of HOward's most notable traits as a politician. But I'm not saying this analysis needs to be in the article, just the facts about those instances of Howard's not doing that have been notable enough for media-wide documentation. It is disingenuous to argue that the category called all the things John Howard didn't do is the same as specific things John HOward didn't do that many people thought he should have and which were reported in the national and international media. Please ... can we elevate the terms of discussion a little? Eyedubya (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, you can add what you want, as long as it is backed up with reliable sources suitable for a biography of a living person. I'll drop my examples as it's clear that the focus is on the examples rather than on merits of any edits per se. So, to reiterate, since the article is locked, place your proposed edits here (or in a new section) and see what people have to say. Alternatively, wait for unlocking and then make your edits. Ta --Shot info (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least you're right about something! Eyedubya (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You will find that all edits are within policy provided that you assume good faith. If you ABF however, all editing will appear to be an uphill battle :-/. Shot info (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, editing locked articles isn't a matter of faith, good or bad, its a matter of whether or not one has the tools to unlock them! Eyedubya (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Russians did not land a man on the moon before the Americans.
• Martin Luther did not obey the pope's instructions to stop his new ideas.
• The French and Germans did not support the Coalition against Iraq
• Julius Caesar did not follow advice given him on the Ides of March.
• Archduke Franz Ferdinand did not follow the planned route the day he was shot.

These are significant examples of someone not doing something. While Johnny not going to Parliament may not be in that league, it is certainly significant. After all, we'll all talking about it, aren't we?--Gazzster (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of context, as I keep saying. Significant in an article about Rudd's speech. Irrelevant in a biographical article. --Pete (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

John Winston Howard refused an invitation to attend the event. So yes, he was invited, and refused. And was the only living PM not to attend. So... Timeshift (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See above. --Pete (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't help thinking that some contributors are anxious to protect the ex-prime minister from possible criticism. I still do not understand: what the hell is wrong with saying: 'John Howard was the only ex-prime minister who did not attend Parliament that day?' It is a fact! No interpretation is drawn from it.--Gazzster (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of criticism or praise. It's a matter of keeping Kevin Rudd's speech out of John Howard's biographical article. It doesn't belong here in this article. It has a legitimate and important part elsewhere, however, and in such a place, yes of course Howard's absence is significant. --Pete (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sure, but how can you possibly avoid mentioning his absence without mentioning Parliament's address to the Stolen Generation?--Gazzster (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue of 'context' is a furphy. The only reason HOward warrants a biography on WP is because he's a politician. Thus, those events in his life that relate to his politics are relevant to his biography. Its only because the current state of the article is a highly sanitised version of HOward's politics that anyone can possibly argue that the issue of the Apology to the Stolen Generations has nothing to do with Howard. Its a fact that Howard was urged to make the apology, and he could have done it, and his refusal to do it lead to his successor as PM doing it, along with his successor as Leader of the Libs also doing it on behalf of his side of politics. If Beazley had been elected, it'd have been him doing it, and if Turnbull had beaten Nelson, he'd have been the one to respond. HOward not only boycotted Rudd, but he absented himself from his own party's part in the Apology, he rejected the invitation of his predecessor Fraser. Its not all about keeping Rudd out of HOward's bio, is it? Howard's boycott of parliament can easily be included without mentioning Rudd. All that needs to be said is that HOward rejected the call from Fraser to attend the parliamentary apology ... Eyedubya (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

'The only reason Howard warrants a biography on WP is because he's a politician. Thus, those events in his life that relate to his politics are relevant to his biography'. But what is his refusal but a political statement? Do you think ex-prime ministers cease to be involved in politics after they quit Parliament? Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating continue to be political figures.--Gazzster (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to tell me that - that's precisely the point I'm making (albeit perhaps not as clearly as I could). So, yes, HOward's political actions post-incumbency warrant inlcusion in his biography - that's what I'm saying. Isn't that what you're saying, or are we writing at cross-purposes here? Eyedubya (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we are. Do we basically agree?--Gazzster (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If we're saying that there should be something in HOward's article about his non-attendance at the Apology last week, then we agree. Eyedubya (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• comment Howards stance on saying sorry was a long held position, while in government he made speeches towards recognition of past events yet separately and explicitly expressed on many occasions that the Australian Government(people) should not say sorry. His non attendance should be covered in that overall context as his public stance on a significant issue during his time as a politician and as a post script to the election loss. It's inclusion isnt judgmental(NPOV) of the person but its relevant to the overall context of the politician JH and the time period in which he was head of the Government. <crystal ball> IMHO the saying of sorry will have an affect on the way in which future governments act and the way in which the first 100 years of Australia will be reviewed. JH will be recognisable for his association with these events, much like Robert Menzies is noted more for his government actions at the beginning of WWII than the longer period after it. </crystal ball> Gnangarra 15:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gnan, your comments as a valued admin are always welcome. How do you propose we break the impasse when the usual suspects refuse to budge? No compromise from their side is hindering any hope of consensus on this issue. Timeshift (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For the 2 editors who keep deleting the information, Skyring(Pete) and Shot Info, you are not acknowledging when each of your objections has been solved. For example, the claim of original research was solved with extra references. The objection that Howard wasn't invited has been solved with extra research. but you leave them behind and move to new objections. Lester 16:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Timeshift (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you two are away with the fairies, but so far the only arguments advanced as a reason to include Kevin Rudd's speech in John Howard's article have been extremely tenuous. Nobody, despite Lester's insistence, denies that there are good sources for Howard's non-attendance. The question isn't sources but relevance. As for whether he was invited, but declined to attend, if we used that as a criterion for inclusion, then the articles of every public figure would be full of trivia and rubbish about events and causes of spurious relevance to the biographical subject. No, Lester, you haven't even attempted to address my objections, repeatedly expressed here. If you don't understand, say so. If you are ignoring my objections and hoping to kid others that there are no problems remaining, I'm happy to highlight your dishonesty.

Yes, let's just ignore Gnangarra, an admins, comments shall we. Who is off with the fairies? Timeshift (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And may I politely suggest to the editor who refers to the subject of this article as "HOward", don't act surprised if nobody takes you seriously. --Pete (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly relevant. I don't know how anyone could say it isn't. If I might politely suggest, perhaps you are putting too much emphasis on Kevin Rudd's speech. Sure, he read the address, because he's the prime minister. But it was as a bi-partisan act. It was the act of the Parliament of the nation, not of a single man. And it is of course significant that an ex-prime-minister, and one which opposed this act, should stay away.--Gazzster (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who made the speech. It wasn't John Howard, the subject of this biographical article. John Howard didn't attend. The only relevance is through indirect, heavily politicised and contentious arguments. --Pete (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

May I politely suggest that the question of relevance has been amply established to the satisfaction of most people in this debate. On Insiders yesterday (4 days after the event, which mightn't seem much, but a week is a long time in politics), Glenn Milne, not known for any left-leaning sympathies, when asked if Howard should have been there, said "Of course he should have been there", and went on to explain why. Not that Milne's opinion per se carries any weight as far as this discussion here is concerned - and WP of course takes no position as to whether Howard "should or should not" have been there - but the very discussion on that program (and many others; I assume it was also covered by Laurie Oakes on Sunday but I've given up on that program since Jim Waley left) shows it's notable and highly relevant. Maybe we should cut to the chase, and recognise that a consensus on this matter has been well demonstrated. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Relevance in other articles, sure. Articles about the event. Articles about Kevin Rudd. But not here in this article. It wasn't a part of Howard's life, and regardless of whether commentators thought he should have attended, the fact remains that he didn't. --Pete (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

On an aside, I have asked for better sources for the edit, mainly as all sources that editors claim say "he was invited" actually don't have the words invite, invited, invitation or similar combinations. So please, rather than just assuming there is some hidden agenda here, stop the original research and add sources to match the assertions. As for Lester and TS' confused cries that I don't want the information in the article, perhaps you need to look at previous edits, were I pared back the original OR edit to match the source - and this of course was mainly about Rudd's speech, so without additional sources to show it's significance, other editors removed it...per BLP. So here we are, there is no objection to the addition of the information but please, have some sources because at the moment assertion is not a source. Shot info (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A source supplied by Timeshift above, does indeed use the word invitation, in the sentence: John Winston Howard refused an invitation to attend the event. Your conciliatory remarks, which I do think some people may have missed, are appreciated though. Wm (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Wm, unfortunately there is some tarbrushing going on by those blinded by their hatred of Howard so much that they are willing to ignore the normal rules of Wikipedia and are willing to splash a bit of vitriol over any editors that doesn't necessarily agree with their (or their political master's) POV. Yes, I read this report and given other discussions about OpEds and their use in political discussions, I merely assumed TS was being facetious (like his atypical dismissible comments below). Again, I call for a source rather than a political commentator saying it is so. After all, if there was an invite, why hasn't the media taken it on board and instead have couched their phraseology to avoid the specific word? Instead the trump source is from a OpEd piece? In this regard I am of the opinion that Milne has made it up (especially since there was discussion on Insiders about the same point with others questioning Milne "how do you know he was invited" and Milne responded with "Come on..." or some other similar claim to authority). So without a media (as opposed to a OdEd) source, I am of the opinion that Milne is using a bit of editorial largesse. Shot info (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Federal Government has invited about 100 special guests, including members of the Stolen Generations and the five former prime ministers., or, Mr Howard resisted such a move for a decade and even declined an invitation to attend today's ceremony., and the original, John Winston Howard refused an invitation to attend the event refused an invitation. But keep denying it to yourself, and ignore the comments of Gnangarra, the admin above shall we?. Timeshift (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"John Winston Howard refused an invitation to attend the event". So yes, he was invited, and refused. And let's just ignore Gnangarra, an admins, comments above shall we? Never let the truth get in the way of a good whitewashing. Timeshift (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The truth is that it was someone else's event, and even if he was invited, John Howard didn't attend. Thne way I see it, this is an attempt to put a paragraph about Kevin Rudd's policies in John Howard's article. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't someone elses event, it was parliament's event. Also, read Gnangarra's, an admins, contribution above re relevance. It is completely relevant and noteable for Howard's article. But like Lester says, from one objection to the next... and then there's your COI which i'm now allowed to mention, which if I did, I believe i'd be in danger of being swamped by A...dmins, which if I did would totally destroy your credibility on this specific issue. Timeshift (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

TS I think you miss understand, being an admin carries no more weight in any discussion than that of anyone else. Gnangarra 00:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, TS if you think Pete's "COI" is worth noting, then your's is definately up there (it seems you are just as "personable" in your real-life "position" as well). So yes, your fear of admins is justified. Shot info (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a supporter of parties of the left. I hold no membership any party, and have never been actively involved in any party (unlike some...) Timeshift (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

COI? TS, you just don't have a clue about me. --Pete (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point in trying to convince disbelievers about this. Nor do we need to. All the arguments are out there, and people can make what they like of them. Consensus does not have to equal unanimity, and what we clearly have here is a consensus. Let's put it in the article and move on. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and now that the party apparatchiks have finally sourced some of their assertions. FWIW, in my opinion, what TS proposes below is suitable (with a little bit of tweaking) per BLP and WEIGHT. Shot info (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That was all I have been asking for. A summary of his attitudes and actions to the issue. Each point in that paragraph can be referenced by sources quoted here already. Ansell 06:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"...balloons showing the extent of electioneering in Bennelong"

Does anyone object to the removal or changing of this possibly POV description of the photo in the 2007 election section? Lots of "electioneering" went on in all electorates, by all parties. Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no idea what was meant by the editorialising as well. Feel free to reword to something appropriate however. Shot info (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems the article is full-protected. No editing except by admins. It must be a vandalism-rich time of the year, perhaps due to being the day after the non-attended apology? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that you post your suggested edits here. Shot info (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of all the electorates in Australia, Bennelong is the only one to have been the specific focus of a book dealing with the election campaign. --Pete (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying Bennelong had the same amount of electioneering as your average Australian electorate? Hilarious. Timeshift (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hard to know who you are replying to (if anyone), but I'm certainly not saying anything of the sort. The book might give the answer, apart from the mere fact of its existence. Anyone read it? --Pete (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The original poster, thus no colons. Note the two i'm using now to reply to you. Timeshift (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Make up your mind. Same indent or one extra? Most people use one extra. --Pete (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

An addition of one colon, two colons total. But you already knew that. Timeshift (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hard to tell, given your example above: "The original poster, thus no colons," you said. Glad we've worked that out. --Pete (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How do the balloons "show the extent of electioneering"? What extent? What electioneering? Where's the cite? What does electioneering even mean? Don't you mean campaigning? It's a nothing statement that adds nothing to the article, except to push a thinly veiled "the Libs were desperate" POV. As for my suggested edits, how about a totally neutral "A Liberal campaigning event for the seat of Bennelong in the 2007 election" or something similar. You guys who regularly edit this page all seem to argue the hell out of any changes to statements that could be construed as even slightly partisan, so I'm happy to leave any final wording to you.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you interpret that out of except maybe your own insecurity. The wording indicates a large amount of electioneering by both major party candidates. Not just one. Timeshift (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be almost an equal number of "Big Endian" party and "Little Endian" party balloons visible in the image therefore it is fair and balanced. Albatross2147 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

a thinly veiled "the Libs were desperate" POV. Actually, I took it the other way - the ALP put a mighty effort into winning votes in Bennelong. As they did. Seems both parties wanted the seat badly. --Pete (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, back on topic, why not change the text to "Electioneering balloons from the Liberal and Labor parties in Bennelong during the 2007 election campaign" or something similar without the editorialising? Shot info (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment That seems a sensible suggestion Albatross2147 (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the point is to show the extent of the electioneering. Also note the caption from the flickr source, though not authoritative. I wonder how many other electorates around Australia had a gazillion balloons in the one place... Timeshift (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You probably need to review WP:OR with respect to unsourced editorialising. I have no idea about gazillion balloons but put a politician on a podium in the US and you have a gazillion balloons. So if a gazzillion balloons in the one place is in fact notable, then (like normal) a source is needed. Ta --Shot info (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We are in Australia aren't we? And what needs sourcing exactly? That there was more electioneering than normal in Bennelong? You could find an article on that ranging from a local news site right across to BBC UK... Timeshift (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than explaining How to edit without editorialising 101 to you, I direct you to here...again. Shot info (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you on SI and where do I get some? The image illustrates the article nicely albeit obliquely. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If we could use this image perhaps SI and others of that ilk would be happy. Albatross2147 (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

SI did you actually get down to here? Albatross2147 (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Alb, did you read that section? We are discussing the caption, not the photo itself. FWIW, I have no problem with the photo, just the editorialising in the caption, you know, the purpose of the thread above. Shot info (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to know which bit of the image caption is original research... I really would. Timeshift (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well clearly you've got no proof that the purported inflated objects are in fact balloons. I think the yellow ones at least might be condoms. Then there is the fact that trademarked logos are clearly visible so WP:An-excuse-to-get-all-hysterical-about-possible-breach-of-copyright might be applicable here. Albatross2147 (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAH way to take the piss :D Timeshift (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:-) - but in saying (writing that) Alb, you and TS seem to be at crosspurposes, I have proposed a change above, so it is unclear what the objection is. Perhaps it's better to wait until until unprot and I will show you the edit proposed? Shot info (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had supported your proposal but I see that it hadn't stuck. I have added a comment above. Albatross2147 (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Howard admitted he was "dead meat" on the day

John Howard knew on election day he was doomed, telling a confidant he was "dead meat". In an explosive ABC Four Corners program, airing tonight...[12] Some interesting new facts coming to light... Timeshift (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Relevance

Looking at the article, I see the federal apology material is covered already:

John Howard's government also considered the issue of a national apology to Aboriginal Australians for their treatment by previous governments following the European settlement of the country. Howard refrained from making a national apology (although all State and Territory Governments did so) and instead personally expressed "deep sorrow" while maintaining that "Australians of this generation should not be required to accept guilt and blame for past actions and policies."[34]

I think that adding a sentence here noting that one of the first actions of the incoming Labor governement was to make a federal apology would be appropriate and relevant within the context of Howard's political career. Having Rudd's speech as a stand alone paragraph later on is inappropriate, for reasons already mentioned. --Pete (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

John Howard's government also considered the issue of a national apology to Aboriginal Australians for their treatment by previous governments following the European settlement of the country. Howard refrained from making a national apology (although all State and Territory Governments did so) and instead personally expressed "deep sorrow" while maintaining that "Australians of this generation should not be required to accept guilt and blame for past actions and policies. He later refused an invite in 2008 to attend a parliamentary apology to the stolen generations. That would suit me fine. Timeshift (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[EC] We can tweak the wording, but we may have found a way forward here. Describing Howard's career rather than inserting someone else's. --Pete (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would go with Pete's suggestion even if it was only to persuade the Bling Guy to unlock the article. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think the wording is acceptable as it's about JH and his position on the subject, though I'd tweak ...He later refused declined an invite in 2008... We dont need BlingGuy to unlock the artile we can use {{editprotect}} when people are happy with the wording. Gnangarra 00:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that it was one of the first actions of the incoming government. There's a lot of 2008 to go yet. --Pete (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont think this article needs to include whether it the first, last or a somewhere in between action of the current Government. The relevance is in the actions of JH, unless there is WP:RS coverage that JH may not have attended because it was the first action of the new government rather than the actual appology. Gnangarra 00:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of telling the story for the understanding of future readers. Someone comes along in 2020, looking for info on past PMs, they got to do a bit of digging to work out the significance of 2008. It's just a number. But saying that the apology was one of the first acts of the incoming government, that's telling the story, putting things together in context. --Pete (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It needs a close quote after past actions and policies, and invite should be invitation. Otherwise, it's fine as it stands, and can be further tweaked if necessary (as it surely will be). -- JackofOz (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• the sub section below has a reworded version based on the the discussion so far Gnangarra 01:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking good atm. Shot info (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Shouldn't it refer to "indigenous Australians", not "Aboriginal Australians"? The Torres Strait Islanders are not Aboriginal in the sense the word is used in this context. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording below to enhance the significance of Howard's non-attendance - i.e. if all or some of the other living ex-PM's had declined the invitation, then much of the significance would be lost and it would have just been yet another thing that someone didn't do. Eyedubya (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked it to explain the significance, not enhance it. Eyedubya (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

minor change removed "living" as thats redundant statement, also moved "the former PM" to after the event detail so as to highlight the event, then the significance of the decline. Gnangarra 03:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The wording proposed is all over the place trying to avoid telling the reader anything relevant about the call for an apology. The idea that an apology was "considered" in some sort of disembodied way is misleading. In fact, there was a vigorous popular movement calling for an apology and the Bringing Them Home report should be linked in the text. The idea that he "refrained" from issuing an apology makes it sound like he was turning down an extra cake for afternoon tea. He didn't "refrain", he refused, and he consistently refused over a decade or so under constant pressure and campaigning to do so. "Refused" is the word used by most sources, a Google search shows that Wikipedia is the only source that thinks that Howard "refrained" from making an apology. Its embarassing. Saying that he "later" declined (declined is ok in this context) obfuscates the fact that the apology was made within days of him losing office. Wm (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is about JH not the whole apology movement, as such should be limited to only significant relevant events related directly to him. The other events should be covered as part of the Stolen_generations#Australian_Federal_government_apology, if there's sufficient information(I'm sure there will be) then this should be moved to a daughter article like Australian Federal government apology. Then the section covering this gets a {{main}} referring the reader to the full information which includes the history behind the apology, along with any future developments and not just selected pieces. Gnangarra 13:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Considered" is ok. That's what Cabinets do. If Sydney were blown up by a nuclear bomb, the government would hurriedly meet and consider what needed to be done. However, I'm inclined to support "refused". If the issue of the apology had only ever come up once, "refrain" would be ok. But it was raised time and time again, and each time he refused to budge. Also, Howard often referred to the risk of the Commonwealth being sued for compensation, and this purely commercial consideration was one of his main arguments against an apology, along with the guilt/blame factor. I think it needs to be mentioned. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Skyring just cannot handle Howard being the only one refusing an invite, can he? Reverted edit. Timeshift (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be engaging in petulant reversions. Surely he can do something more constructive? Or should this be taken as an admission of defeat? Eyedubya (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would amend recommended in the Bringing Them Home report to recommended in the 1997 Bringing Them Home report Albatross2147 (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Side Issue

Is this to be a footnote to the Second term: 1998–2001 section, where the paragraph currently is or does it now need to be considered a separate section altogether. Gnangarra 03:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of putting such a condensed issue in a timeline format. Timeline format is great for most things but this issue was distributed across his time as PM. Ansell 06:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the story of John Howard. It is not the story of the various groups opposed to his policies. If it's not in context, it doesn't belong here. Howard dealt with the apology in the same manner as the republic. He found a way to settle the issue to his satisfaction and that was it. The various groups who wanted a republic or an apology or whatever kept on seeking media coverage, raising their issue time and again, but it wasn't a matter of Howard considering each outburst afresh. He ignored them. --Pete (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The story of John Howard, like that of anyone, is made up of their actions in response to the world around them. Howard's actions on gun laws, GST, Workchoices, excision of migration zones, etc etc were all in response to 'pressure' in the world external to him - unless you are suggesting Martin Bryant was a puppet of JH's that he set up in order to create the climate for his Gun laws, or ... well it all gets too big doesn't it, your argument about what's 'about' John Howard and what's not falls apart. The 'pressure' for an apology, or for a republic, or to end mandatory detention, or to make Workchoices fairer are all external to JH, yet they are all issues where his response to them was crucial to JH's identity, his politics, which is what a bio about a politician is about. Eyedubya (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

An interesting diversion there, and perhaps a fascinating insight into the workings of your soul, but you miss the point. Howard's response to the external pressure for an apology was a one-off event. After he made his own "statement of regret", he ignored further demands; he had dealt with the issue. Describing the history of groups making media stunts in an effort to attract attention belongs somewhere else. --Pete (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not my soul on show at all. We have William Shakespeare to thank for the phrase 'No man is an island', which is all I'm trying to say in response to your view that JH is an island, and that his biography, like his politics, should be determined by your desire that you decide what gets into his life and the manner in which it enters. Oh, the irony. Eyedubya (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that quote was from John Donne. It's from his Meditation XVII. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

aaaaahhhh! someone's paying attention! "never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee" - Did you know that, or did you have to look it up?Eyedubya (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord, man-woman! Not only is it probably by far the most famous thing he ever wrote, but if he had written nothing else, he'd still be famous for this passage alone. I learned it in school (that may say something about how ancient I am, but may also say something about the standards of education these days).  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I always thought it was 'The Sun Rising' [13], but then perhaps I attended a different era of schooling! Eyedubya (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Double hmmm. Explain how, if you always thought it was from Donne's 'The Sun Rising', you thanked Shakespeare for it. Try and wriggle your way out of that!  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh-uh! I meant I thought Donne's most well-known poem was The Sun Rising ... not that The Sun Rising was where the phrase 'No man is an island' came from. :) Eyedubya (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I was referring to the passage "No man is an island ... it tolls for thee", not the whole Meditations. The bell is now tolling for me to get back to the topic. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You astonish me in your lack of perception. Of course we need to show a biographical subject reacting to external forces. Perhaps I was too subtle above. The point I was making was that when an external force ceases to have an effect on the subject, we need no longer include their story in the article. You seem to be a political being, so I'll give you an example. Our article on the 1958 election devotes considerable space to the effect of the DLP. But our 2007 article doesn't mention them, although they were still in there as candidates. Would you have us keep on including their determined attempts to seize at least the balance of power, or would you agree that after a certain point we are wasting space on them? --Pete (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you are engaging in OR. How do we know that the calls for a national apology have ceased to have any effect on JH? Do you have an insight into JH's soul? Unless you can cite reliable sources with statements from JH about his own imperviousness to the effect of this issue, all that can be done is to report on his behaviour. And that is all that the statements we have been editing about this issue do - report on JH's behaviour as recorded in reliable public documents. Whether or not this issue ties in with the way the activities of and political support for the DLP or not, I've no idea. Not all analogies are valid - especially ones based on OR. Eyedubya (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

SHRUG I can't find any reports that Howard did anything after making his statement of regret but ignore calls to go further. No headland speeches, no interviews, no nothing. I don't need any special insight to look for something and not find it, presumably because it doesn't exist. If you don't understand the DLP thing, don't worry, it's old hat nowadays. --Pete (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So, you needed to engage in a bit more OR to check out your hunches, eh? You're improving! Eyedubya (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If (a) something is reversed the minute Howard leaves office, and (b) his own party goes along with the reversal, and (c) he refuses an invitation to view the reversal, and (d) the media makes much of a, b and c, then it is absolutely pertinent to Howard and belongs in the article. I think it fits well as a final paragraph on his non-apology in the 1998-2001 section. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course. But as usual, the vocal right minority attempt to dictate how it should be done. Timeshift (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to the dogmatic dictatorship of the vocal left? I think that after spirited discussion we've found a compromise that works well. This is, after all, an encyclopaedia, not a political tract aimed at one side or another. --Pete (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hallelujah! Timeshift (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at my proposal here and your immediate response, it looks like the two of us found a solution together, and everything since then is minor tweaking of your words and my placement. Glad we two got it right! --Pete (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Its been clear for a long time that a number of gaps exist in Skyring's intellectual dillybag - to which we can add the ability to count above 2. Eyedubya (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Pete, I missed that. Actually not too dissimilar to what I had been saying. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I trust you're not seconding OneEyed's comment above? Had to laugh when he confused John Donne and William Shakespeare. Shakespeare may be full of cliches, but not that one! --Pete (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, seconding is OK, just don't be the third person to support anything on this page, as poor old Skewing will run out of thumbs to count on. Eyedubya (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Now we have Skyring debating the term stolen generations, again his unspoken conflict of interest (not just a supporter of a party) is unhelpful to him... but I cannot say it, otherwise, I believe i'd be in danger of being swamped by A...dmins. Timeshift (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like the tweaking of the wording has settled down. Lets give it another day if no more significant changes I'll add it the article where the current paragraph on this is. Gnangarra 07:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See below Eyedubya (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

More edit warring

Someone recently reverted the article (what amounts to starting an edit war) to delete the line about Howard being the only former PM not to attend Sorry Day. This line was discussed extensively above. I have seen no justification for this recent reverting. Any revert needs discussion page comment at the time of the reversion. Otherwise editors can only comment in edit summary boxes when they re-revert it, which is not a good way to behave. I call upon the reverting editor to quickly justify the serious act of reverting the article.Lester 12:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Adjusted to the text as discussed and modified so far, no need to start an edit war we've been discussing this for a couple of days. Any futher tweaks can still be done here I'll adjust again tomorrow night as originally stated. Gnangarra 12:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the agreement was to say that JH declined the invitattion to XXX, and finish with the words 'the only former Prime Minister to do so' - which is unequivocal in its meaning.Eyedubya (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history, the text agreed on the talk page before unprotection didn't include that line. I suggested the placement of the information about Rudd's apology, Timeshift suggested the words, and barring some minor tweaking, that was it. There's no concensus for the bit about other PMs, which is irrelevant in this context, but otherwise it's good to see that we worked together to find a solution to the original problem. Newcomers here should take notice of the process. --Pete (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have - though maybe some newcomers are what's needed around here, since it looks like many of the 'old crew' may be caught up in fighting old battles that are really getting in the way here. The question is, can you accept another point of view to your point of view? Why do you insist on calling it 'Rudd's speech'? As has been stated before, the event was an Apology to the Stolen Generations on behalf of the Parliaments and Governments of Australia. It was a bi-partisan event, where the leaders of both main political parties gave a speech on the same topic, both gave an apology. All former PMs except JH were there to witness the entire event - they didn't just turn up for Rudd's bit and then leave (which is how you are making it sound). You sound like a cheerleader for the ALP by constantly rendering the event as all about Rudd. Given all of the arguments that clearly set out why it is significant to note that JH was the only former PM to decline the invite, you have yet to rebut a single one of them - mere assertions of 'irrelevance' and 'not agreed' do not prove anything other than a strange inability to accept the facts. Eyedubya (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We agreed upon the wording here, it was inserted into the article, you then took it upon yourself to make substantial alterations and you have refused to accept that your preferred version is not that which was agreed upon after considerable discussion here. Get concensus before making controvervsial changes. --Pete (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Concensus was indeed achieved on the wording that I and others have been attempting to keep in place. You are the only one saying otherwise since, though prior to concensus it was only you and one other who were making an issue out of this whole thing. Everyone else agreed to the wording that includes the part about JH being the only former PM not to attend. Its only a few words, hardly a substantial edit - what's at stake here for you, really? Eyedubya (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just correcting one misapprehension. It was on behalf of the Commonwealth Parliament and the Commonwealth Government only. All the other Parliaments have already made their own apologies, and no PM can speak for state/territory parliaments in any event, as they are sovereign. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We're both right - the phrase 'Parliaments and Governments of Australia' is a term for the same thing, the Parliament and Government of Australia (aka The Australian Parliament, the Australian Government) the same Commonwealth Parliament and Government over a historical period of time, requiring it to be pluralised to 'Parliaments and Governments of Australia'. I agree its potentially ambiguous, but its actually the phrase used in one of the speeches (best not to mention whose, just in case you-know-who gets kranky), and its unlikely that such a gaffe would occur on such an occasion.Eyedubya (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to User:Skyring I've replaced the wording' section. Please don't remove important parts of the public record of this discussion, it makes it harder to follow. Eyedubya (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to get my goat, Eyedubya? Better folk than you have tried and I've outlasted them all. Just ask Adam Carr. Rudd's apology was a Commonwealth thing, of course. Looking at the history of this article before unprotection, we had agreement on the wording apart from the "ex-living prime ministers" bit. I think we might need to talk this out so we know where we stand on this point rather than edit-warring over it. --Pete (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure your goat prefers you to me, especially if you can make it last that long. Eyedubya (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I call upon user:Skyring(Pete) to stop reverting the article. Your edit summary keeps claiming you have consensus, but your edit waring clearly shows you do not. Yes, you carefully stay under the 3RR rule to avoid admin sanctions for your daily edit war ritual, however your reverting of the article is not fair on the majority of other editors. The majority of other editors clearly disagree with your reversions. Reverting the article all the time is not the way to achieve consensus, and is not a productive way for editors to work together.Lester 11:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR also says Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Gnangarra 12:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was on this basis that I recently raised a 3RR notice on Skyring for his persistent no compromise reverts on the David Hicks article. Admin Stifle promptly applied a 31 hour block but Skyring appealed against the block (twice, after first appeal was denied) and claimed that he was working toward consensus, he gave diffs of comments he had made in the talk that superficially seem to show he is a good Wikipedian working toward consensus. He was subsequently unblocked by admin Jayron32. Wm (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Lester, for the usual misrepresentation. As noted, the wording we agreed upon in order to get the article unprotected, did not include the line about the ex-living PMs. Clearly there was no concensus for insertion. We have agreement on the major text after a lot of discussion, which is a good thing. The disruptive behaviour of Eyedubya, who prefers to use abusive comments in discussion, and refers to my edits as "persistent vandalism" is noted. --Pete (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The persistent disruptive behaviour of SkyRing who engages in abusive, belittling comments and issues challenges to other editors about their lack of 'staying power' and 'intestinal fortitude' which have nothing to do with the actual content of articles, but are bully-boy tactics, designed to goad other editors into similar behaviours, to which SkyRing can then call 'foul', is duly noted. People in glass houses, pots and kettles, etc etc. Of course, this is a well-known tactic - its always the kid who yelps after being hit by the bully who cops it, rather than the bully. It is also noted that SkyRing has yet to offer a substantive argument for his case about the lack of relevance of JH being the only former PM not to attend the national apology, relying solely on assertion, as he is also doing with regard to the matter of when a consensus was achieved in relation to a particular form of words. Its time to play the ball, not the man, mate. The issue of consensus is a problem, I don't see anyone else agreeing with SkyRing's views on the content that was agreed. That leaves the actual argument about what is and what is not relevant to the content of the section on the national apology. If there is a substantive, coherent argument why the words "the only former Prime Minister not to do so" should not be included in that section, please provide it asap, and refrain from using tactical methods to impose your ideological viewpoint. Eyedubya (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Long rant, heavy on personal abuse, low on content. Please address the points I raised above. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See below. Eyedubya (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than being a misrepresentation, Lester's comments seem to characterise the situation very accurately. Your claim that the wording we agreed upon did not include the line about the ex-living PMs seems rather obviously false given that it was only you that kept on removing it. 1 2 3 4. If you wish to continue to claim to have consensus to remove that line, could you please explain with whom you formed the consensus? Wm (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus changes pretty quick around here :-) You need to read what Pete was saying and go back to the days prior to the article being unlocked. But yes, CCC. Shot info (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Noting that Wm repeats Lester's misrepresentation. Where, precisely, did I claim consensus? On the contrary, I noted that the material was disputed. It would help clarity of discussion if all parties stuck to the truth, please. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, Here, here,and here you include explicit claims of an agreed text. In any case, by removing the disputed line, it implies that you believe that the version you are reverting to is more consensual, otherwise why do you keep reverting to it? Wm (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(respond to Wm). We have agreement for the remainder of the paragraph. We do NOT have agreement for the ex-prime ministers line. I have stated this several times. Please don't try to pretend anything else. --Pete (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

SkyRing has yet to explain why he has such a problem with this, he has not so far given a substantive, coherent rationale to support his actions in terms of relevant WP criteria - notability, verifiability etc. His position has been based on assertions of 'irrelevance' related to a spurious logic that the event was only an event in someone else's life, and thus not warranted within JH's article. At the same time, he has stated that the event was a 'commonwealth' event - thus undermining his own attempt to tie the apology to one single politician. Of course, this kind of 'controversy' is the sort of thing that gets WP edit wars in the news - maybe SkyRing, being an ex-political journalist (according his user page), is still caught up in the media practices that help sell the papers, but which in themselves often lack intellectual rigour or consistency - a pattern of behaviour which is becoming very clear on this very page to newcomers like me. No offence, you understand - just making an observation as they say. Eyedubya (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

More personal attacks. Can I just direct the eye of a third party to Eyedubya's reliance on this tactic? And no response to the points I raised earlier regarding agreed wording.

Let me put it another way. We have reliable sources, through published biographies, Parliamentary Handbooks and so on for the birthdates of Gough Whitlamm, Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. I think we can all agree that this information is relevant to their biographical articles. I think we can likewise agree that the birthdates of former prime ministers have no relevance in John Howard's biographical article. Likewise other minor facts about political lives. We don't include Paul Keating's pig farms in this article, for example. Now I invite everybody to follow those wikilinks above to see if the biographies of these former Prime Ministers contain any mention of their attendance at the recent parliamentary apology. They do not. So why, I ask, are we mentioning their attendance in this particular article, when we don't mention it in their own articles?

John Howard's absence from the apology is worth noting, in context with his stance on this matter. But I fail to see any reason to include, in this article, the attendance of other people. That is only relevant to an article on the event itself.

Would it be too much trouble to get a direct answer to these questions above? Or are we to get more evasions in the form of personal attacks? --04:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The answer you seek has been stated a number of times, using a variety of formulations, yet you are determined not to see it. Let us deal with your 'logical' objection first. Your fundamental premise is that facts in the bio of person A have no place in the bio of person B, and vice versa. You then use this logic to argue that a set of facts (FA) in the bio of person A prove that a different set of facts (FB) in the bio of person B shouldn't be included in the latter's bio. The same logic can't be used to prove opposite arguments. Either what belongs in the Bio of person A has nothing to do with that of person B, or it may. If are there are any circumstances where it might be the case that facts in bio A relate to facts in Bio B, then your proposition fails.

Now, to deal with the actual facts of the matter in this case. It has been established that, in John Howard's case, his views on an apology to the stolen generation was an issue that was important to him. Thus, whether he attended or not, it would be noteworthy. And as part of that noteworthiness, it would make a difference whether or not he was the only former PM not to attend or not. If he had been the only former PM to have attended, then would that be worthy of a mention? Yes. Thus, if he is the only one not to attend, then equally so. If JH and one or two of the others hadn't attended, then that would have also been worthy of a mention.

Your concern that the bios of the other PMs who attended don't mention the event or their attendance at it is something that someone may choose to rectify at some stage, should they have sufficiently strong views about it. Given that your fundamental issue seems to be an issue of parity between the bios of Australian PMs on wikipedia, then may I make the suggestion that you initiate a project to render the bios of Australian PMs more equitable in their coverage of relevant matters. This would be an extremely valid project, as it appears on a brief review that there is quite a serious inconsistency between these bios at present. Some PMs have extremely good coverage of their politicial values and policy positions, while other bios lack any coherent structure for presenting this information. However, this lack of parity in relation to one small detail is really an argument for greater inclusion of matters of relevance rather than fiddling around the fringes and battling to keep 'inconsistent' details out, while the major discrepancies are maintained. Imagine if this approach were to be extended, and all articles were edited on the basis of what they have in common with other articles on the same type of topic - you'd end up with a very large set of extremely short articles whose content is driven by the lowest common denominator. Is that what you really want? Is that what any of us really wants? Eyedubya (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask for a direct answer and get a load of doubletalk. Thank'ee. The only thing that comes close to being relevant is this: If he had been the only former PM to have attended, then would that be worthy of a mention? Yes. Thus, if he is the only one not to attend, then equally so. That's spurious equality, even if one agrees with the first premise. The fact is that he didn't attend the event, the articles of those who did don't bother to note the fact, despite the earnest assurance here that this is all very important. Pardon me if I see this concern as spurious. --06:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyring (talk • contribs)

Give a clear answer, and get a lack of comprehension. So, are you saying that the basis for judging the relevance of any fact within any article is the shortcomings of other articles of a similar type? Are you really, really arguing that? My oh my. So, the future is to be judged by what the present lacks, everything is to be pared back so that it matches the worst of what now exists, is that it? My, that is a whole new meaning to the term 'conservative'. Eyedubya (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have any substantive response to the points I raise, why bother filling this page up with blarney? You aren't kidding me, and I doubt you are kidding anybody else. As I've said before, plain dealing will get you further here than playing silly buggers. We work together to find acceptable wording for our articles. --Pete (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, its about time you practised what you preached then - or 'I'd like to see that!' (and lets keep the anti-Irish sentiment out of it, OK?) Eyedubya (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of who is right or wrong regarding content, a revert war is not the way to deal with it. Not only that, even our draft wording (which was a work in progress) was deleted from this talk page (here) to prevent us from continuing with it. Lester 23:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OMG, what are the "us" to do! - And Lo, I reveal draft wording....below. Shot info (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

More comments on Draft Wording on National Apology(below)

I think the wording should state that all the other former PMs attended the National Apology, but Howard declined the invitation. It puts his absence in perspective.Lester 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs references - including the clear references for the bit which is currently "controversial". Shot info (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What on earth is the point of having two different texts? Once the article was unlocked, there was no point in having a copy here for Lester and his clones to edit war over. Anyone wants this "vital historical document", look at previous versions of this page. My objection to the "only former PM" material is that it is not relevant to John Howard. He didn't attend the event. That's significant, but listing those who attended, even if indirectly, is only relevant for an article on the event itself. --Pete (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The point to having the text in the discussion page is so it can be discussed and changed by the community. It's impossible for anyone to work on the text in the article because you keep reverting any changes you don't like.Lester 05:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to actually be the case. We're discussing the text here, once again. Please keep up. --Pete (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Its easier to follow it if its on the same page rather than buried within some text with a different title. The issue is notability: John Howard's absence from the national apology was notable because he was the only former prime minister absent, not because he was absent per se. Anyway, 6 references have been provided, 3 that record his impending absence/non-acceptance of the call to be present/invitation, and three that record his actual absence from the event as a former PM. One of these references names who was there, thus making Howard conspicuous by his absence, the others clearly state that JH was absent while the other former PMs were there. Eyedubya (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3362062.ece is from the Times in the UK they report that JH was the only former PM not to attend, as does all Australian sources. In relation to JH its significant point of his non attendance. Gnangarra 05:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no disputing that we have good sources for this, and that it is relevant to the event. Likewise we have a good source for Keating's birthdate, and that it is relevant to Paul Keating. The point is relevance to John Howard. Just how is it relevant to John Howard to mention the attendees of an event he didn't attend? Look at Paul Keating, there's no mention that he attended, so why put his attendance in John Howard's article, but not in his own? --Pete (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's more relevant to Howard (than Keating) because the Bringing Them Home report called on the nation to apologise to the Stolen Generations. Howard, as the PM of the day, refused to apologise for the nation, and prevented that from happening. It became an issue throughout his Prime Ministership. These things were not an issue throughout previous PM's terms. How can something that was an issue throughout Howard's term not be relevant to Howard? Any event that gathered a line up of all the living former Prime Ministers would be a major event, no matter what the subject. It's particularly relevant to Howard because of his past stance on the subject.Lester 06:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A very coherently expressed argument. But please see above - SkyRing is arguing the same point in a number of different places ... its like a bush fire. Eyedubya (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

An event so major that their biographical articles don't even mention their attendance. Yeah, right. --Pete (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, no-one has gotten around to adding it yet, as its not of so much importance there as it is to this article. Priorities, priorities. Eyedubya (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Gotta laugh. Paul Keating attending an event isn't so important in his own article as Paul Keating attending exactly the same event in John Howard's article! Really? I see Lester has scrambled to insert a reference, so I've made my point. --Pete (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you really believe what you're saying about this, why aren't you deleting all the references to people other than John Howard in the John Howard article? There are lots of instances of people who are not JH being mentioned, even though they aren't actually John Howard, and do things and say things of their own which aren't even about Joh Howard. If you're going to use the narcissistic version of biography - meaning that anything which isn't 'about' the article's subject, but about matters 'in the world' in which the subject lives and operates - then there is a lot of work to be done. Surely you'd want to be consistent on this one? If not, then why not? Eyedubya (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't play silly games. I've mentioned before that external forces and influences should be included. Where relevant to the subject. But there is no relevance to John Howard in listing those who attended an event he didn't. Noting the nature of the event in context is useful, but going into superfluous detail isn't. Talk about other PMs attending on the article devoted to the event - that's relevant, and you'll hear no opposition from me. But not here. For all your bluster, you haven't succeeded in making a case for relevance. Believe it or not, I'm a reasonable man, and I'll listen to common sense. But when you speak rubbish and misrepresent my position, I'm just not going to be able to take you seriously. You're learning fast here. Learn how to be honest with your fellow editors, please. --Pete (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet more projection SkyRing. I'm not the one playing 'silly games' - that's your worldview, not mine. I'm not the one using 'bluster' (assertion) rather than reasoned argument - that's your trick. I'm the one using 'common sense' - not you: just look at your 'argument' - you describe the phrase 'the only former Prime Minister not to do so' as 'listing those who attended an event he didn't' - what common Joe Blow is going to say that's a 'list'? It doesn't name those who attended in a series of any kind, it refers to a very specific and limited class of persons of which JH is a member. I'm not 'misrepresenting' your 'position' - that's your problem that you misrepresent what other editors are saying to yourself. You impute subjectivity, motives, malice, bad faith, the whole kit and caboodle to everyone else while you're as pure as the driven snow - 'a reasonable man' even, the arbiter of all things, the standard by which all others must be judged. Its time to play the ball, not the man. Like you say, 'plain dealing', not 'silly buggers'. Eyedubya (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at progress made, since taking the wording discussion back here, I think I've exposed the spurious logic of some of those who want our article to include the fact that Howard was the only ex-PM not to attend the apology. The fact that the articles of those who attended didn't even include a mention of the event (until Lester scrambled to insert a mention in Keating's bio) shows that they thought this point was only important in regard to Howard. Why? Isn't the fact that Howard declined to attend significant enough? Where is the benefit in noting who else attended an event that Howard did not? To my mind, the answer lies in the motives of those who insist on its inclusion. I don't mind balanced or neutral contributions - we can't satisfy everyone, nor can we paint every subject in the best possible light - but when editors take it upon themselves to skew an article to their preferred political viewpoint, nibbling away bit by bit at NPOV, then we as a group need to put our foot down. We're here to present information, not propaganda. --Pete (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So, is this an example of plain dealing or silly buggers? It looks to me like a prima facie case of silly buggers. SkyRing makes an observation about a deficit in the Keating article, another editor rectifies the problem, SkyRing belittles the other editor, moans, imputes bad faith. What do the terms 'projection' and 'hypocrisy' mean to you? On the factual side, why can't you see that the statement 'the only former Prime Minister to do so' doesn't actually mention the names of who attended the Apology, it merely draws attention to the fact that among a certain class of people who were invited, JH was the only one not to go. Its all about JH. Eyedubya (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone deny that Howard being the only ex PM absent from Sorry Day was not a major media event, both in Australia and world media? Does anyone deny it got major coverage? Lester 11:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It got coverage, relatively minor given the length of articles supplied as references. FWIW I don't mind it being in this article, but would prefer a neutral wording from one of the longer references along the lines of "Howard was invited but declined to attend" etc. The actual commentry of the pros and cons of the "major media event" is better covered in the article of the event. Shot info (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

SO are you saying that it could read thus: 'Howard was invited by declined to attend, the only former Prime Minister to do so'? Bec ause if you are, the we are close to total consensus, bar one. Eyedubya (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The apology was a major media event. John Howard declining to attend was a minor part of a major story. That other ex-PMs attended but he didn't was a minor part of a minor part. John Howard declining to attend is relevant to John Howard. I suggested the placement of the story as a way of solving an impasse, and that has worked well. I think we all agree on everything but the "other ex-PMs" part, and looking at the ridiculous lengths to which some editors, some rather new editors here, are prepared to go to get that little irrelevant bit into the story, I think we can safely leave it out. If they have to resort to personal attacks and misrepresentation to make their case, they have no case. As I say, that information is relevant in other articles. Just not here. --Pete (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

While the Apology was a major media event and Howard;s non-attendance a minor part, Howard being the only ex-PM to be absent was a major part of a minor story of relevance to John Howard's bio. Simple as that. Your implacability on this issue is akin to John Howard's own in this regard. Eyedubya (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec - rp to Eyedubya) What I am saying is what I said, not what you would like me to say. Ta --Shot info (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To Skyring(Pete), the reason I mentioned it was a major media event was not to include that in the article, but to demonstrate its notability. All media organisaitons covered Howard's absence among other past PMs. Howard's absence from the group of former PMs was also notable because it was damaging to the current Liberal opposition, and gave credibility to the 5 Liberal party MPs who abstained from the event (reference). To user:'Shot info', a long time earlier in the discussion you asked to be provided with a reference that actually used the word notable when describing Howard's absence among former PMs. Well, 'Shot info', here's your reference. Thanks, Lester 12:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

All media organisaitons covered Howard's absence among other past PMs. Yeah, but in relation to the event. And we aren't a newspaper. We're writing a biographical article. Rudd's earwax thing made headlines around the world, but we all decided to leave it out. Let's stick with what's important, not what's news. --Pete (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the apology was/is a major event from the Commonwealth Government of Australia representing the all people of Australia, to have a former Head of the Commonwealth Government decline an invitation to attend is notable, to be the only one makes it significant both in relation to the event and the person who didnt attend. What its show is not a negative about JH but a positive in that he has always maintained that the Commonwealth of Australia had nothing to apologise for. This is just a demonstration of JH character and integrity as opposed to bending to the popularity stance. Pete/Skyring is acting in an identical manor by maintain his position even when its clearly apparent that the consensus is it should be included. The question is now how does he proceed while keeping his integrity intact, well JH has just ignored the media let them say what ever , knowing that the best way to end a discussion is to stop fueling it. Gnangarra 13:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring is acting in an identical manor by maintain his position even when its clearly apparent that the consensus is it should be included. Hear hear. Timeshift (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Very astute observation indeed. Can we (as in the rest of us, most of us, most of those working on this article) all move on now? Eyedubya (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the photographic resemblance :) Regarding the wording, I still think it would be better to say that all the other living PMs were at the event. Yes, the current article wording about Howard's refusal, the only former Prime Minister to do so essentially says the same thing, but it's just a different emphasis. It's just a matter of capturing the context of the unusual possibility of all living past/present PMs in one place, and therefore Howard's absence was more notable. Regarding the word "living" (which editor 'Somno' objected to earlier), I still think the word is the most appropriate way to say it, as it then also includes Rudd in the line-up of PMs. Cheers, Lester 13:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The wording for the section on the national apology

• Please do not delete this section, as it is the key reference point for the discussion above
• Please keep comments in the section above edit; use this section only to tweak the wording

As recommended in the 1997 Bringing Them Home report, John Howard's government also considered the issue of a national apology to Indigenous Australians, in recognition of the treatment by previous governments following the European settlement of the country. In the face of a growing movment in favour of a national apology, Howard was resolute in his refusal to do this, although all State and Territory Governments issued their own. Instead, on 26 August 1999 John Howard personally expressed "deep sorrow" while maintaining that "Australians of this generation should not be required to accept guilt and blame for past actions and policies." In February 2008, in the opening week of the new parliament that followed his election loss, Howard was the only former Prime Minister who declined an invitation to attend the parliamentary apology to the Stolen Generations..

A government, a parliament by any other name - Federal, commonwealth, Australian or national?

The aside above regarding the title of the government of which JH, among others, was leader, raises the issue of consistency in WP articles. While we may quibble over these words, the article itself uses the word 'federal' where Australian, commonwealth or national would do just as well (and uses all of them some of the time) - so for consistency's sake, surely the whole thing needs a rigorous clean-up? Eyedubya (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Australian governments" is ambiguous. We ourselves use it to mean all 9 of them in COAG. To readers from overseas, its use in the National Apology context looks like a reference to all current governments in Australia - federal, state, and territory - rather than a series of federal governments over time. Consistency is great, but lack of ambiguity is an even higher calling. That's not to say that a clean up isn't a good thing; just a note of caution. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt many overseas readers will be aware that Australia has 3 levels/spheres of government until they read relevant WP articles, so I suspect that most of them won't make any assumptions about it until they get to the line about all state and territory govs already having apologised! I agree, minimising ambiguity is indeed a very high calling and that is one of the reasons for seeking consistency across articles of this type. Eyedubya (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Howard's PM infobox

Hello folks. 25 of the 26 Aussie PM infoboxes have Elections in their content. Would anybody object to making it 26 out of 26? GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No objections from me. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. Timeshift (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fourthed. Eyedubya (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Seeing as I was responsible (months ago) for disrupting the consistancy of these PM's infoboxes, I felt it was my responsibilty to correct them. Thanks again people. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Referendum on an Australian Republic

Is there are reason why there is nothing at all on this? Was there ever a section on it? Does anyone agree that there ought to be? Eyedubya (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As usual the article has been whitewashed to death. Note how images aside, there is not one single mention of Bush? Timeshift (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bush as in the small tree type, or Bush as in the "outback", or George senior / George junior? :) yeah ok I know you mean the junior ... Gnangarra 14:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Whitewashed"? Don't look at me, cobber. If there ever was a section on the Constitutional Convention and the subsequent referendums, I certainly didn't pull it out. --Pete (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So it seems there is a consensus building that there ought to be a section on this then? Eyedubya (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this'll have to be something for the new, improved, revamped article on John Howard. Eyedubya (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As a non-Australian there's a point on this that I've never quite understood. Why do so many assert that Howard somehow rigged the 1999 referendum? Much of what I've read suggests the problem lies in the Australian constitution (requiring proponents of a change to have the proposed alternative model mapped out before putting it to the people rather than a general "do you agree with this in principle" referendum followed by parliament fleshing it out, as is probably how it would be done in the UK), the republican movement being divided over exactly what it wants to replace the monarchy with; and the traditional difficulty in getting a referendum to pass in Australia. And the process, whilst initiated by Howard was promised by Downer, so what exactly is Howard supposed to have done or not done that makes him the target of republicans? Timrollpickering (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The republicans don't like to think that they stuffed up. Turnbull was the biggest problem. He had to "own" the model, and so he came up with this ridiculously complicated model. A camel is a horse designed by committee, well, his compromise model was a camel, not a racehorse. It was intended to win votes at the convention, giving Turnbull a victory and lots of visibility. Well, it scraped through at the convention and was put to the people. Apart from being a bloody awful model, Turnbull himself got up the noses of any number of people, especially the republicans who wanted a president directly elected. They got together with the monarchists in an unholy alliance that pointed out the flaws in Turnbull's Camel, and support for change dwindled. Howard, said Turnbull afterwards, was the man who broke Australia's heart. But Australia voted for Howard again and again, so that can't have been right. --Pete (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sub-sub-sub-sub headings

What's with all the recently newly added sub-headings? I don't care about the fighting over alleged POV issues (see next paragraph), they are simply annoying (POV or not). Wikipedia is not meant to be set out like a listy phone book of bullet points, but should be formed for coherent related blocks of paragraphed prose. No, the article was not quite there in that respect, but it was better than the choppy and excessive sub(x4) listing. Any reason. The sections are simply not big enough (nor should be in such a large topic) for this extra level of headings.

Further, as has been evidenced by the to-ing and fro-ing in recent days, the necessary cropped nature of headings are notorious for triggering POV arguments. They are just not worth it in this case. --Merbabu (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the commentary from the headings for the campaigns, this article needs a structural rethink, while the timeline formate was fine when he was PM an still in politics. I think now we should reconsider to highlight major policy points and reduce the focus from individual campaigns which are covered in daughter articles. Gnangarra 00:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The fourth term section is particularly long winded. I think the recent addition of the sub (x4) headings in the other sections was an attempt to achieve consistency with this section, however, the opposite should have happened. Ie, trim the fourth section. Personally, I'd like to see most of this info go into another article on the 11.5 years of the "Howard Govt" - keep the stuff that relates strongly to Howard in particular on this page. YEs, this is a major major shift and I advise talking through it first (the devil will be in the detail). An equivalent proposal was largely agree to on at Kevin Rudd talk page, but not yet implemented to my knowledge. --Merbabu (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As was always apparent, and confirmed on Monday night's 4 Corners, in a lot of cases "the Howard government" was John Howard, so it's hard to separate them. That's not to say we shouldn't try, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That’s a reasonable point. But, perhaps it still doesn’t hinder us and I still recommend the split. Ie, create the new “Howard Government” (or similar name) article, and then either a well written article will make Howard’s significance (domination?) evident, or it even becomes an explicit point of discussion. THus, this article gets trimmed *right* back to the stuff that specifically relates to Howard – i.e., not a discussion of policy, but how policy influenced Howard (and vice versa). Ie, the gun debate is important to his early PM’ship (a big boost for him), whereas we move all the detail on the terrorism sedition laws to the new article.

Obviously, the changes from where his leadership and popularity were unchallenged to the late 2007 dramas all relate to Howard PM’ship and him personally, and thus can be mentioned in detail – but Work Choices (for example) only needs a sentence as one the main factors in loss of the election – details on the actual can go to the new article. Ditto the extensive Mandatory Detention coverage which is excessive for here --Merbabu (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My way of thinking is 6-10 points,
Early years, family, education etc
as an MP
treasurer
Opposition
PM
2007 election, leadership speculations
after politics
honors
Each of these covers the major events with daughter articles to cover the finer details and a couple of major issues that transcended his whole political career ie IR, Apology, Privitisation Gnangarra 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a pretty major change, but one we've talked about before. I'd very much like to separate out the political issues of a term so they can be discussed in more detail. Cramming opposing political viewpoints into a biographical article just doesn't work well, but if we examine things like (say) the republic thing in Howard's first term, we can look at the various personalities and factions in a reasonable amount of detail. Telling the whole story, not just how it relates to one person. I'm wondering how we'd do the political history bit, though. Do we divide it up into government terms, with (say) the three or four different governments between the second and third federal elections each having an article, or do we do it by inter-election periods, or by (say) decades, where there may be several major changes of government? --Pete (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this page, and the person responsible for the sub-sub-sub-headings, I can say this: Upon reading the article, it struck me that it was very hard at a glance to get a sense of what JH was about, as a politcian and as a character. Surely that is the point of a biography. So, the sub-sub-sub-headings were a way of making it clear exactly what the article did cover, to make it easier to follow for futue editing, and to see at a glance what might be missing. And it looks like a fair amount is indeed missing, while as has been noted above, some of it has been wildly over-emphasised. Having been through this exercise, I support the comments above about re-writing the article so that it more biographical and driven by central themes in JH's political career, rather than focused on a somewhat glib and partial timeline of policy moments in the life of his term as PM. Clearly, there are important threads to his politics that developed early in his career, well-before he became PM, and these then play out during his 11.5 years in power. So, I'm saying, we can eventually lose the sub-sub-sub-headings when a more genuinely biographical account of JH becomes available. Perhaps this page is the place for it to be drafted? Eyedubya (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And now that I've seen what the page looks like with most of the sub-sub-sub-headings removed, and we're almost back to square one - there's very little to lead the reader into it, very little that gives any clues as to the main issues, themes, forces, etc that JH's politics have been about. The only people who have a clue what's in the article are a small bunch of dedicated editors - but isn't the appeal of an encyclopedia supposed to be as a source of information for everyone else? Basically, the current format is boring! (Maybe that's what you think JH deserves - I disagree). Eyedubya (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

its reflective of an active public figure who has involvement with many notable events on an almost daily basis. The timeline format is good for such dynamics but once retired then the presentation of information does need to be reconsidered. Its also reflective of the dynamics of Wikipedia in that we can adjust to the most appropriate presentation as circumstances change. Gnangarra 10:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree - its time for a more appropriate presentation of what makes JH one of the most interesting and controversial PMs Australia has ever had. Eyedubya (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

not quite sure where the exhaustive/exhausting discussion has got to here, but I emphatically support the splitting of this into two articles - one on Howard, the other on the Howard government. They are completely different beasts, flippant remarks about Howard's dominance of his cabinet notwithstanding. I note the proposal to go in that direction at Kevin Rudd - it can't come soon enough, so we can avoid some of the more tiresome conflicts that come from trying to jam a current political events peg into a biographical hole. Glad to see a new face here, Eyedubya, I just hope you've more patience than me. cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late, but I'd been advocating that sort of approach quite a number of months ago, and firmly agree it's the way we should go. Ideally would probably be divided by term as well. Orderinchaos 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

John Howard (Australian politician)

Please do not move this to another page. John Howard is John Winston Howard, and anyone disputing that another John Howard is more noteable should show some evidence. Timeshift (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes to AEI Speech section

I changed the text which has previously clailmed that John Howard broke his post election silence as it was inconsistent with the previous paragraph that noted a Febraury speech in Nigeria. Obviously if he was specking in Nigeria then the speech in Washington is not 'breaking his silence'. Further, the text that suggested that Howard 'attacked' in his speech is POV. Read the text of the speech and not only does Howard never speak of Rudd by name but he seems more disappointed that the policies were changed than 'attacking'. I changed the text to read criticised. I think this is less POV. Kisdm001 (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's good work from both Timeshift who first included it, and also to you for your re-wording. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence of this section is ambiguous - while defending WorkChoices and the withdrawal of troops from the Iraq War reads as if he was defending the withdrawal of troops! A better wording would be criticised the withdrawal of troops from the Iraq War and Rudd's industrial relations policy. He didn't specifically mention WorkChoices in the speech so the direct reference is misleading anyway. Editing is restricted on this article so could someone with editing privileges please fix. 203.206.209.8 (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion - the external link cited for this is a secondary source and hardly neutral POV. The full text of the speech would be better, the AEI has it under http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.27613,filter.all/pub_detail.asp 203.206.209.8 (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've amended the last line so that it's not so ambiguous, ie, Howard was against the withdrawal of troops.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)