Talk:John Howard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Liam is a bousssse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.113.137 (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps date.svg A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on March 11, 2006 and March 11, 2007.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15
Archive 16

Template:Editsemiprotectedtext Should the comment "The process of reform began before the committee reported 2½ years later" be changed to "The process of reform began before the committee reported two and a half years later," The comment in found in the "Federal Treasurer" section, paragraph two I would change it myself, but i can't, if i am mistaken sorry... Ivey.eli (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Relationship with Indigenous Australia

Not sure if this has already been discussed, but the "Relationship with Indigenous Australia" section consistently refers the "Howard government". Shouldn't that content be in the "Howard government" article? --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There is complete confusion about which article things should go into.--Lester 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gun Control, East Timor and the GST

In response to the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, John Howard brought State governments together to initiate major gun control measures across Australia. The move met with some opposition in traditionally conservative rural districts where the National Party vote was under assault from One Nation, however it was greeted by wide acclaim in the broader community. Controversially, Howard addressed a pro-gun rally in a bullet proof vest [ see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia) ]

In 1999, John Howard successfully campaigned internationally to raise a coalition of willing nations to intervene in East Timor and restore order following a United Nations sponsored independence vote which had led to the widespread outbreak of violence against civilians by pro-Indonesian militia [ see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Timor#Independence ]

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating criticised Howard's handling of the crisis, however the Keating critique was rejected by East Timorese independence leader Jose Ramos-Horta, who wrote of Mr Howard as "an exceptional leader, a man with courage and integrity"

With reference to its response to the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 and to the East Timor Intervention, Mr Ramos-Horta further wrote of the early Howard government:

"In the case of the economic and financial crisis in the region, as well as in the case of the East Timor crisis, Australia has emerged as a reliable and indispensable power through its economic muscle and decisive leadership.

The East Timorese will be forever grateful to Australia. We will remember John Howard with gratitude and Paul Keating with contempt – or he might be discarded into the dustbin of history." [To History's Dustbin, Mr Keating - Jose Ramos-Horta; Sydney Morning Herald; 9 October 1999]

Despite his 1995 comments rejecting the GST, Howard made taxation reform a central plank of his narrowly won 1998 re-election campaign. On 1 july 2000, the Howard Government instigated major taxation reform by replacing a series of State and Federal taxes and duties with a single Federal 10% tax on goods & services across Australia. [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_Services_Tax_(Australia) ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 05:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm struggling to find what you are wanting to change in the article. Is this just WP:SOAPBOX? Timeshift (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Until you mention gun control, East Timor and the GST you do not have a full discussion of the Howard Prime Ministership. Agreed? Presently these key events are not even mentioned! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 06:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
And did you even bother to take more than a passing glance at the article? Because if you did, you'd notice that this article is about John Howard, and not the Howard Government, which there are numerous links to in the article. Howard Government mentions all three. Now run along. Timeshift (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Rubbish. An article that can talk about Howard and economic management and Howard and US relations can talk about Howard and East Timor and Howard and gun control. Now lose the "attitude".
Hey, i've always been against the seperation of Howard the person and Howard the government as different articles, for example the reason you've just stated. The point stands however, that amongst John Howard and Howard Government, it's all there. If you read the article and knew this, you wouldn't have presented the above arguments in the way you did. Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure it's a biography article on Howard, and I actually have no problem with this being different from a Howard Government article; I am just not yet happy with how this has been done. My comments are obviously intended to be considered for inclusion somewhere in amongst or in addition to the Headings marked 6 through to 6.6 which deal with "John Howard Prime Minister" which do not yet reference these three major (and controversial) issues and Howard's role in them. Sections 6-6.6 have major gaps. IN a John Howard article it is perfectly relevant to list his major areas of policy involvement. So far this job is incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 08:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
If gun control, east timor and the GST should be in this article, then any single policy aspect of the government could be. The three belong in Howard Government. Howard the person was directly involved in US relations via his personal friendship with Bush, and sections of the media put the market-controlled economy that was booming thanks to mining, in the second half of his Prime Ministership, down to Howard's skill. Note my skepticism. Regardless, when a poor decision such as the division of the subject in to two articles is made, there will always be disputes over what should be where. But the point remains you did not read the article to note the Howard Government article otherwise you would have brought it in to your discussion. But perhaps that is another fault of having two articles. Timeshift (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


I have no problem with these three items going into John Howard article – in fact, having just checked the article I’m surprised they are not. These were 3 major issues, along with just a few others, that stand out in defining Howard as prime minister. Without looking at the various and long-archived discussions on the article split, I remember that there *was* general agreement on including these points. Having said that, I don’t believe they need anything but the *briefest* of mentions (there is ample room in specific articles to develop these – if not done so already), and I am still against listing every detail of the govt’s 11 years of activities in this article. --Merbabu (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC) PS – it’s amazing to me that these 3 items are not in the article, yet a tiff with Obama is. I guess that’s popular input for you. --Merbabu (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Because Howard was the one who had the tiff with Obama? That relates to Howard the person, not Howard the government. I still think having two articles just creates problems i've already said, and also duplication. Two articles shouldn't exist - I guess that's popular input for you. Timeshift (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Do ou believe that Howard’s fallout with Obama is more significant to Howard the person than the 1996 gun control measures, or the GST? That’s the impression the article provides. These two issues are closely related to Howard (arguably more so than East Timor). I will get around to it sooner or later if no one else does.
I’m not sure why you can’t see the need for a separate article, but from where I sit, it seems to be used well to justify the exclusion of major items (GST, gun control) and to justify the inclusion of relatively trivial things (Obama). Perhaps the problem is not so much the principle of two articles, but the implementation, which I have indicated here is fairly lousy. --Merbabu (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it is the fact that GST/guns/timor were legislated policies by the Howard government, while the Obama/Howard thing was a tiff and not a legislated policy? It is not rocket science. If GST/guns/timor should be in the JH article, then so should the rest of the government policies and the Howard Government article should be deleted. Timeshift (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
You say "If GST/guns/timor should be in the JH article, then so should the rest of the government policies and the Howard Government article should be deleted" The corollary of that idea would be that nothing relating to John Howard’s PM’ship should then go in the Howard article, which of course would be complete bollocks, an approach that no-one in favour of the split (the majority) supported.
I think the distintion between Howard the Prime Minister and the Government is very clear to all, as is the fact that there are some stand out and notable items that are very closely related to Howard, and there are many numerous others that are details, which in theory could go on and on and on. The all or nothing approach that you are suggesting is not going to work (as you know, indeed as you wish?), rather some discretion is needed. If anything that the Govt enacted goes into the John Howard article, where does one stop? The principle of a split is broadly accepted, but clearly implentation is going wrong if gun control and GST is not mentioned, whereas a spat with Obama is mentioned.--Merbabu (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Many Howard Government policies were personally instigated by Howard. Not so much East Timor and gun control (which had bipartisan support and probably would have turned out similar under a Labor government, though Howard deserves kudos for pushing gun control through largely against his own constituency), but things like budget surpluses, GST, Workchoices, refugee policy. So in that sense they were to do with Howard the person, and I think they all deserve a mention here. (And are all far more significant than the Obama comment, which I agree belongs here also).
It is incorrect to say that gun control would have turned out the same under a Labor government. Labor had talked for a number of years about the need to implement gun control, but never did so because of resistence by the National and Liberal parties. If there had been a Labor government at the time of Port Arthur, it is uncertain that the conservative parties, especially the Nationals with their rural base, could have supported it, and if the Liberals would have supported because of political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimofbentley (talk • contribs) 08:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Even better, merge Howard Government back to here. All the split has done is given us all one MORE thing to argue about, and editing on both articles has pretty well stalled. p.s. Merabu I'm curious to see whether there really was a majority consensus to split. In any case, if I did support the split back then (and my recollection was I was a "weak oppose", and possibly didn't express an opinion), I certainly oppose it now! Peter Ballard (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
While implementaion has been lousy (Obama “yes”, GST “no”), having a single article was and is fundamentally flawed. It just becomes a dumping ground for every little detail that is notable to a government, but not notable to a biography. It was one big list. --Merbabu (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I disagree that the split created less argument. Obama aside, it has seen an almost complete decrease in trivial, details that really relate to the govt being inserted and then edit warred over. Interesting that no-one is interested in adding details to the Howard Govt article, but they are lining up to put it under John Howard. That speaks volumes – to me anyway. --Merbabu (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
You're joking right? I suggest you check out Talk:John Howard/Archive 14, Talk:John Howard/Archive 15 and Talk:John Howard/Archive 16; all devoted to an argument over one detail which was ALREADY in the Howard Government article. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you be more specific, I really don't want to work through 3 archives. What am I looking for? argument related to a split, or just argument?
Further, the level of argument over an article has nothing to do with whether it should be deleted. Then we’d delete George Bush (or for that matter John Howard. --Merbabu (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The debate was over whether to mention a submission to the International Criminal Court to try Howard for war crimes. Currently it's in neither article, though at the time (at least while I was participating in the debate before I gave up and left) it was in the Howard Government article. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
What ever the merits of either side of that specific debate, it actually has nothing to do with an article split. Ie, personally, I’d say it doesn’t belong in either - but that's beside the point at hand. --Merbabu (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, Howard Government is a waste of time, duplication, and causes bickering about what goes where. I could argue Merbabu's belief in holding a majority, but there is no point, as wikipedia works on consensus not majority, of which there is none. The two articles are hanging in limbo. But whatever helps Merbabu sleep. Timeshift (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
But whatever helps Merbabu sleep. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok the picture is clearer to me now. I didn't know the history of "the split" and the arguments about it. So you can take my reaction as a fresh look at the results of the split: I believe there are some major omissions in the John Howard the man profile: Port Arthur; East Timor (his letter to Indonesia for instance) and the GST Election.
On another point: I think comments on Howard made by his significant adversaries and his supporters are very relevant eg "Little suburban solicitor" by Keating; "man of courage and integrity" by Ramos-Horta; "man of heart and a man of steel" by Bush; "I have been time and again grateful for his counsel" by Blair; "I will always remember that he was the first voice on the phone after the Tsunami" by Yodoyono; "if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq. Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric" by Obama etc. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 05:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are not meant to be lists of quotes. Rather, we report on events around those quotes. Besides, that would just be asking for trouble on a page with a history of "bickering". --Merbabu (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
There never was consensus for the article split, as some have claimed above. The split was made in the middle of a separate fierce discussion/edit war over the Obama quote. Objections were raised at the time, but ignored. Now it seems, any negative facts go to the "dumping ground" of the Howard Government article, in order to keep the John Howard article a clean biography.--Lester 17:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "US Relations" should be expanded.

The chapter on US relations seems thin. I suggest the following:

Upon his election to office Howard sought to "reinvigorate" the US alliance. Howard's stated philosophy on balancing US and European relations against relations with Asian nations was that Australia did not have to "choose between its history and its geography". President Bill Clinton quoted and endorsed these sentiments in an address to the Australian Parliament. In 1999 John Howard lobbied President Clinton to assist in a military intervention in East Timor and in March 2000 Howard received a congratulatory letter from Clinton: "I want to take a moment to congratulate you on the steadfast leadership your government showed in addressing the rapidly changing circumstances in East Timor."

Howard was in Washington DC near the Pentagon as it was struck by a hijacked aircraft on 11 September 2001 and closely aligned himself with United States president George W. Bush in the aftermath of the attacks. The philosophies of the two leaders in relation to domestic policy often differed (eg Howard supported gun control; the maintenance of budget surpluses; and an emphasis on government debt reduction) but in international policy, Howard firmly supported Bush's military action against the Taliban and Saddam governments.

Howard strongly advocated a Free Trade agreement between Australia and the United States, negotiations for which were concluded in 2004. The Australian Labor Party's Mark Latham criticised the closeness of Howard to Bush in 2003 saying: "Mr Howard and his Government are just yes-men to the United States".

In May 2004 President Bush hosted Howard at his ranch in Crawford Texas. The President called Howard a friend and told reporters: "The prime minister is not only a man of steel, he's showed the world he's a man of heart".

In February 2007 Howard strongly rejected Democratic presidential nominee candidate Barrack Obama's opposition to the Bush Administration's "troop surge" policy in Iraq, and the Senator's proposal for a March 2008 withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Howard told the Nine Network: "If I were Al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and pray... for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats".

In response, Senator Obama said: "if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq. Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric." --Observoz (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre Censorship: I agree with you, Observoz, that these quotes should be in the article. The improvement of this section is impossible while certain editors endeavour to remove and censor commonly known facts that are widely covered by the mainstream media. For example, the quotes from Howard and Obama during their disagreement (mentioned by user:Observoz above) got deleted during edit wars. It is beyond belief that such famous and well known content is censored in this way. It used to be in the article. Now it isn't. If some editors delete facts they perceive as being negative to Howard's image, it provides a disincentive for other editors to add any facts to the article, whether positive or negative. The article then comes to a stalemate.--Lester 20:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest more care be taken with accusations of censorship. It was likely not your intent, Lester, but such comments might suggest a lack of good faith. Censorship is major wiki-sin, yet there are a number of reasons why info on Howard that you would have liked in the article did not get consensus for inclusion (info which of course was equally balanced between negative and positive info). Rather than censorship, these reasons were provided by a variety of editors, a number of whom are of very high calibre and whom I know in real life are quite left in their political outlook – yet, they are just good at not letting their bias’ seep into their WP editing. As for the Obama drama, there was indeed edit warring going on, but there was a whole lot more written on talk pages about it, and the current position is the rough consensus arrived at. Ie, the version there now got thrashed out on talk pages rather than lost in edit warring – and, when has there ever been a one-sided edit war? Further, if the point is included – as it is and immaturely so in my opinion – it is actually insignificant if the actual quote is not there. --Merbabu (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the new suggestions are OK and I can support with some changes and very good cites. Firstly, it is now too long. Like much of the article, I think word count can be significantly reduced (by half even) without actually removing any points – perhaps by perhaps carefully trimming/removing paraphrasing the quotations which get tiring in any article – say the Clinton and Obama quotes. Although, I agree that “man of steel” can’t really be described using other words - lol. The suggestions also needs further review/work on the wording – for example, “balanced *against*”. Ie, this implies to me "intentionally at the expense of Asia", and care needs to be taken to check that this is actually what was said/meant. Further, it does not mention the US alliance.
More generally, the previous versions of this article, this suggestion, and some editors seem to imply, to varying degrees, that Howard’s “closeness” to Bush and the US was exceptional – even that he was subservient to the US. But was it really exceptional? How would have any other PM acted – including a Labor PM – had they been in power during the “War of Terror”? I suggest what was more to the point is that it was US actions, rather than Australian, that were exceptional. I.e., has any Australian govt not gone along with US military action when requested, or suggested that the Aust-US alliance is not of utmost importance? I might be wrong here but I don’t think so. Keating and Hawke were all avid US supporters, and Rudd seems to be too. The only difference might be that the Howard and Bush seemed to have a “personal friendship”, at least that is what the media seemed to paint. --Merbabu (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Merbabu, I didn't understand what you meant about the Obama incident being "included – as it is and immaturely so in my opinion". You'll have to elaborate. Also you said: "the version there now got thrashed out on talk pages rather than lost in edit warring" - I would disagree. It was arrived at by edit waring, circumventing consensus. Some of the main deletionists refused mediation when offered. Howard's verbal attack on Obama still resonates, it is still headlines in the papers years after the event, and is a political issue for the current opposition under Turnbull. Yet it can't be quoted here.--Lester 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to elaborate. The Obama drama is old news, and is a side-show that you brought back up in relation to the new posts here – that I replied to it above is more than enough time wasting for me. The obama drama is in there. Why do you need quotations too? If you think it needs even more elaboration still, my suggestion is to go and look at the archives. No one is forced to required to have mediation and I fully understand there reason not to. What about the rest of the point at hand apart from the Obama distraction? --Merbabu (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the other points made by user:Observoz. They should all be included. Some were there before but deleted. For example, Howard's stays at Bush's ranch were previously in the article, and fully referenced. It was there prior to the Obama information, but seemed to get deleted during the Obama discussions, as a means to keep Obama out. The Howard/Obama spat is still in the daily news, and regularly discussed by commentators. People wonder what was said.Lester 12:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY! Obama's likely win in the US Elections today will only go to show how conservative and out of touch Howard was with the Public both Australian and International. As this goes towards an historical explanation for his own terrrible loss at the hands of the electorate (that historians in coming years hence will surely cite) THIS ABOVE ALL ELSE SHOULD SURELY GO BACK INTO THE ARTICLE. TO NOT DO SO IS TO CENSOR AND DISTORT HISTORY! 122.148.173.37 (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The Obama stuff was hashed out many months ago and I see no need to revisit it. Neither Obama nor Howard have added anything to the debate. The current text was arrived at after exhaustive consultation on the talk page. There is no need nor consensus for change. --Surturz (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Surturz, your refusal to participate in formal mediation does not equal "exhaustive consultation".--Lester 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually my memory is that I spent quite a bit of time brokering the consensus text (what was it, 8 versions?). But thanks for ignoring the time and effort I spent doing that. I refused mediation because you and the other pro-quote editors simply wanted an admin to step in and tell me I was wrong, you didn't really want mediation at all. That said, at least you are a consistent inclusionist (e.g. you want to include the Kevin Rudd G-20 gaffe at that article), unlike a certain other more mercurial editor. --Surturz (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add to his Awards

PRIME Minister John Howard was presented with the prestigious B'nai B'rith international Presidential Gold Medal for his "outstanding" support of Israel and the Jewish people at a ceremony in Washington on Tuesday, May 16 2006--Jupiter07 (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC).

[edit] The Times Will Suit Them listed on AfD

Just a heads up for those interested in adding their two cents to the Article for Deletion discussion. Timeshift (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further Reading and External Links sections

What's the criteria for adding a book to the reading list? Further reading lists are just trouble. Yet another POV nightmare. --Merbabu (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed, a POV nightmare. I think autobiographies and 'official' biographies (ie. biographies written with the permission and involvement of the subject) would be okay to include since there can be no WP:BLP concerns. Otherwise, WP:RS would be a reasonable guide. If the text is not a WP:RS, then it should not be included. I'm also dubious about the existing Hansard link, because we generally don't seem to use Hansard links in AusPol articles (it's a primary source). In principle I think a 'further reading' section is a good idea, it's the practicality and potential for edit warring that worries me. --Surturz (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Hansard: Im my opinion, Primary Sources make bad reference material but they make good External Links. They give extra material for the interested reader. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Interesting philosophy, I think I am sympathetic to that. Banning all Hansard links would seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --Surturz (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems we are in danger of descending into edit wars over some of these (External Links, Further Reading, See Also). I see no problem so long as links are annotated. Wikipedia:External links says, "If you link to another website, you should give your reader a good summary of the site's contents, and the reasons why this specific website is relevant to the article in question.", and I believe that the same should apply to "Further Reading" and "See Also" (where it's not obvious). So for the books, a one sentence explanation of what the book is about, explaining why it is relevant. Returning to the point of the last delete - I've no problem listing a list of books by Howard's political opponents, or books critical of Howard. so long as they are labelled as such. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • While there is attention on this section, I have removed the SIEV-X book. It should appear in that article (which I cannot remember the name of have now moved it to), not this one. --Surturz (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the SIEV-X book, I think removal was wise. Relevance is tangential to subject. --Merbabu (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-core promise

Where's the "non-core promise" quote? --Surturz (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I remember discussing this and helping put it in. It used to be there, now it's gone, both from here and Howard Government. Maybe it was a casualty of the infernal split. However it happened, it's very frustrating to work on something then to have it ripped out for no good reason. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a lot of content gets ripped out of the John Howard article for no good reason. Often, deletions happen without an adequate description in the edit summary, so it's hard to track who did it. The "non-core" quote was one of Howard's better known quotes.--Lester 12:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
It’s not really about “who did it” but the reasoning behind it (sorry if it looks like I’m lecturing on the obvious!). Also, I never rely on edit summaries to understand the history of a page – good edit summaries help, but one needs to actually compare versions. I know this is what I do. --Merbabu (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Per my edit summary, I think the case for inclusion of the quotation is marginal. This gets back to my point about not focussing on the bigger picture or narrative rather than on media beat ups and catch phrases/one liners/clangers – a point apparently not shared by to many! But I can live with it’s inclusion and acknowledge it as actually being a big story (difference being it didn’t happen this year or last). But be aware of context – ie, I think the actual (huge) budget cuts are the point of consequence, not the media hype about a shocking line. Hence, I put it in a couple of days ago.[1] If someone could clarify it without (a) increasing word count or (b) introducing (or worsening) POV then I’d be happy. --Merbabu (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "4th worst defeat"

As I've argued elsewhere (can't remember where, sorry), "4th worst defeat" is a vague and debatable term. The size of the defeat can be expressed in various ways - 2PP vote, 2PP swing, number of seats lost, percentage of seats lost, etc. - so the the phrase "4th worst defeat" needs to be replaced by a more exact phrase. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is a bit vague as currently worded, but I'd like to keep it if we can describe it as the 4th worst defeat in terms of - - - - - - - . Was it 4th largest swing (23 seats??). --Merbabu (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"4th worst" is a silly phrase to include. Stick to the objective facts. 1st or 2nd might be notable, but I very much doubt the question "Which was the fourth worst election defeat?" would even turn up in a pub trivia comp. No reader would be interested in which was the fourth worst defeat, nor the eleventy-seventh narrowest defeat. It is not useful information to include. --Surturz (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed it. I perhaps would have liked to have seen it modified (per my comments above), but I can live with it gone. --Merbabu (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Obama quote

John Howard's famous Obama quote, where he said "If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats" keeps getting added and deleted. Why not let the quote speak for itself? It's a relatively short quote, so it doesn't need to be paraphrased for space reasons. For accuracy, we need the famous quote back in there, not a paraphrase. With the massive world coverage it still gets today, that one line is probably now the most famous thing that Howard ever said. Please put it back.--Lester 23:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

To my mind, it’s not quite accurate to say it "keeprs getting added" and deleted. It got added twice by yourself only in the last few days after a reasonably long time of stable state of a highly contentious issues. Then, yes, Surturz and then myself reverted it to its more stable state. But, what you didn’t mention above is that I then actually saw that the text wasn’t actually inline with the actual words said – so, I then paraphrased it to the essence of the quotation you wanted (I agree, it wasn't quite correctly paraphrased. [2]
There’s a few more issues that need to be considered – and you should keep in mind that unless you get a startling new argument, you are unlikely to convince your opponents on the merits of inclusion:
  • This was a very contentious debate and one in which that you essentially got much closer to your way than your opponents (ie, inclusion rather than exclusion). Consensus was achieved not by agreement, but by those disagreeing with you (eg, myself), choosing not to remove it. To now bring it up, and “grab yet more”, is undermining that consensus. Please keep a spirit of compromise and keep in mind that for us exclusionists, you got 90% of what you wanted. We got 10% - please focus on cohesion (which often do very well) and don’t makes a feel like our 10% is now being undermined.
  • I disagree with the length thing – it’s got a lot more coverage than some events like the 96-97 budget cuts which I think were more consequential. Rather than thus increase the coverage further, I suggest holding in check the attention given to Obama. With reference to "massive world coverage", I asked a number of people over the weekend about the Obama Drama – none of them had heard of it, although everyone remembers (either fondly or with horror) the first term budget cuts, Port Arthur, the leadership tensions, etc, etc. While I won’t insist that it be removed as non-notable, I will insist that any notability is kept in context.
  • It’s also a stylistic thing – all these block quotes look poor, and disrupt writing. Better to paraphrase it, or if we must put the “most important few words” into brackets “like this”. And, even if you don’t agree – then at least do it to show your spirit of compromise (be happy it’s there), rather than a spirit of winner takes all.
regards --Merbabu (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It's trivia. Why should we include this, if we don't include more widely reported and/or notable incidents on Kevin Rudd? Are we trying to present a balanced picture toour readers, or are we going to be forever following some ideological line. What sickened me about my time in politics was that party political spokesmen were forever doing their best to spin things their way. Party A is squeaky-clean and Party B is filthy evil. Why don't we Wikipedians just report the facts? On an even-handed, impartial basis. --Pete (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I don’t see either (“Obama Drama” or “or the what’s G20 leak”) as being particularly worthy of inclusions, but I’d have to reiterate my concerns over the apparent double standards, particularly as it seemed that those wanting exclusion for G20 only acknowledged that the event was not confirmed, but did not acknowledge that the *issue* as opposed to the events was certainly confirmed. Big difference.
But these debates go around in circles, particularly as “sides” don’t appear to give specific acknowledgement of the other side’s reasoning (ie, acknowledgement is not necessarily agreement).

--Merbabu (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We wasted a lot of time discussing this previously and consensus text was eventually developed. For Lester, a participant in the previous edit wars on this issue, to change the article text without even discussing his proposed changes on the talk page first does him no credit. He should know better. I have no desire to either waste more time discussing this issue, nor change the extant text and will be reverting accordingly. Please do not assume my WP:SILENCE equates to consent on the Obama quote... go through the talk archives if you want my view. --Surturz (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. With this difference: I now must grudgingly admit notability since it is still appearing in the newspapers, and Obama ultimately got elected. The main problem I have now is with putting the quote in verbatim. The quote was clearly ironic in tone (Howard was criticising Obama, he was not really guessing Al Qaeda's prayers nor intending to lead Al Qaeda himself) and so it is more important to put in what Howard meant rather than what he said. To put in enough context to use the quote verbatim would be undue WP:WEIGHT. --Surturz (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
You don't seriously think we should undergo some WP:OR and interpret words do you? It is far better to put in what he said rather than what he may or may not have meant. It is up to us to report and let the reader come to conclusions rather than us do that for them. Timeshift (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I kinds agree with tomeshift here. Although I note surturz reverted my stricter paraphrasing of lesters full quotation. --Merbabu (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I note timeshift has just reverted surturz. While I agree with this version, I think our problem on these pages is that we don't bring with us those with whom disagree ,finding a third and better way is almost foreign while position entrenchment is the norm, we compete rather than collaborate and are not mindful of letting our "opponents" save face. It would have been nice to at least give surturz the opportunity to say "ok I don't agree but I accept". Ps. That is not a comment directed at timeshift alone but all here incl me. And edit summs can be the worst behaviour. --Merbabu (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I was actually agreeing with your compromise. I'm happy to change and compromise, I only stand my ground on occasions when I believe it to be warranted, or the situation doesn't allow for more than two options. Timeshift (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
yeah. I got that u agreed. :). --Merbabu (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just reverted Timeshift9's edit back to the original consensus text. I am a bit disappointed, to be honest. The consensus text, which has been there for quite a while, was arrived at by many iterations here on the talk page. Eventually, everyone agreed it was tolerable. No such effort is being made with the new version. I'm not against changing the text, but given how much trouble we have had with this content before it seems a bit reckless of Lester and Merbabu to be installing new versions without any significant discussion. Is it so hard to propose the new text here, and get some feedback before installing it? --Surturz (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. Quick history lesson for everyone: Talk:John_Howard/Archive_12#Compromise_.28or_lack_thereof.29_.238 <----this is the way to establish consensus, not edit warring. --Surturz (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Surturz, i think at this point it seems that you are the only one against this edit. You say you're not against changing the text, but seem to be dwelling on procedure (or at least how you think the procedure to be). Rather than argue over very malleable notions of "consensus" (it's like governments, oppositions, and Senate parties all simultaneously claiming a "mandate"), woudl it not be best to look beyond procedure and identify what actually needs to be done to achieve that consensus? Ie, what's your actual position on this version here before your revert? Are you actually against it or is your revert more on procedural grounds? To be honest, this tooing and froing about who actually has consensus is bulls**t. COnsensus arrives when people like myself who don't want to see it at all just accept it - ie, I never agreed to it's inclusions, i just stopped commenting and didn't revert it. And for what it's worth, i too was a little annoyed with Lester's initial change, but tired to look beyond the apparent stretching of the collaboration.
Can you accept the new version? For me, if it must be in (gah!) then it's not unreasonable take on it. I'm not appealing to follow the procedure (whatever tf that is), rather I'm appealing to a sense of collaboration - i reckon you reverting yourself before someone should earn you significant wikirespect. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I can't accept Lester's version or your version. Both of these basically insert the quote verbatim which as I have mentioned before is misleading without a lot of context. I have let many changes to this section slide, the worst of which was changing it to "US Relations" when originally the section was about his close personal relationship with GWB (evidenced even more recently by GWB's appearance in The Howard Years). You calling my actions "bulls**t" is a complete lack of good faith when I was the original one to broker the consensus text, bringing Skyring and Matilda on board to include it. Lester was the one to change the Obama text without proposing it here first, you shouldn't be defending him. Hash out a version here on the talk page first. If you can go a week with me as the only dissenter, then you have your consensus and can insert it into the article. It is not too much to ask. --Surturz (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The bulls**t remark was perhaps ill-advised, but it is the way I see it, but importantly it was certainly not aimed at you, but all the bickering over who has consensus (I was in on it too at one stage). I'm glad you at least stated your condition for accepting and moving on. --Merbabu (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
PS, my problem with the interpreted version (yours) is that it is just that - an interpretation. Perhaps the key then is to find a notable and reliable secondary source to use to put it into context. I understand what you are saying about the context (i'm not against it in principle), but without sources to back it up, i think such a remark needs to be kept as is. --Merbabu (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
To add my opinion, for what it's worth: It's been a while since I had much to do with this article (since before the split, I think) but looking at it now I think that without context, neither of the two quotes ("man of steel" and "praying for obama") add particularly to the US relations section. To add context would be to give the quotes undue weight, as if Howard's Obama quote was somehow important to his US policy. Maybe it would have been, had Howard won the election and subsequently had to repair his relationship with Obama, but that is not the case. Perhaps the section should be rewritten to include more actual substance (affirming the ANZUS treaty, personal friendship between JWH and GWB, for example) rather compromising by including one quotation of each side of this debate. Just a thought.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that's the best suggestion yet, although I don't think that the two quotes were meant to be opposite and balancing. Also, as an interim measure, I'd like to see if Surturz can give us his approval per my last comment. It would be a small victory for goodwill, but a meaningful one. And should be easier than a much needed but difficult re-write. --Merbabu (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The "man of steel" comment is pertinent to both the personal Bush/Howard relationship and the wider alliance. Hard to give a complete picture of the man without discussing his friendship with Bush and its effects on the direction of our nation. The Obama thing is trivial in comparison, though if Howard and Obama had been contemporary heads of government it might have been interesting. Have to wonder at the impression a reader would get from Wikipedia about contemporary Australian politics; the significant is lost amongst the trivial. --Pete (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Without talking specifically about this issue, the "significant" has indeed been "lost amongst the trivial" in this article (for various reasons with any blame to be widely apportioned!). Another editor who knows this page summed it up to by saying it lacks a narrative. I would like to think that my editing over the last few days has addressed that slightly. Mostly me with more to come. --Merbabu (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC).
Wikipedia's preferred style is "lifeless". By and large, the best articles on WP are those predating the internet. For anything contemporary, editors are sparked into action by reading a news report and trying to be the first to add the new factoid to the relevant article(s). And then defending their work against all comers. After all, it's "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit". The end result is more like a wall covered in graffiti than a great work of art. Here we also have differing points of view. Michaelangelo's angels got fig leaves added by later contributors, and likewise we whitewash or highlight itty little bits of articles, losing sight of the big picture. --Pete (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Grafitti is another good analogy. Are you saying recentism? It's a scourge, but we all engage in it to an extent - it is easier. That's why when I started making some big updates to JH and H Govt I started at the beginning. --Merbabu (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
There may be recentism and rushing news elsewhere, but not Howard's Obama quote. It was made 2 years ago, and it's discussed in the media more than ever. Rudd's first-ever conversation with Obama, and Obama brought up the Howard quote for discussion. So it has certainly been on Obama's radar. The exact quote is not very long. The fact it's had such longevity shows that many people find it of interest.--Lester 11:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
While 2007 was recent in terms of Howard's PM'ship, the comment was a general one and not specifically about Obama. To "recentism" I'd add "headlineism". But, there's no need to continue to try and convince me of the merits of the Obama inclusion, I'm not about to remove it. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the Obama quote can be included provided context is included. Howard made the comment in support of the TROOP SURGE in Iraq which OBAMA OPPOSED. This is significant because most would probably now accept that the recent history of Iraq proved Howard right and Obama wrong in relation to supporting the TROOP SURGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.137.223 (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Retirement / Leadership section

I've restored some material to this section. I've now discovered it was chopped in May 2008. Ironically, at the time, there was a suggestion to not do it while there was an edit war over the Obama quote (Talk:John Howard/Archive 11). How little things change.

Anyway, while I appreciate that the section was too long (and is maybe too long again), if it gets trimmed again I think these 3 facts (which I restored) should remain, even if as passing comments: (1) He didn't promise to see out his term in 2001 ("when I'm 64"); (2) he didn't promise to see out his term in 2004; (3) he said he would not see his term if re-elected in 2007. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with those 3 points. Ie, basic to the issue. I am reluctant though to continue reinstating old versions. Chances are there was good reason for it if it lasted this long. While I think this revert was fine we should only do it after considering the intent of the change. It gets hard after 6 months.cheers Merbabu (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't a simple revert. I picked bits out of the old versions. Why did shortened version last so long? Probably because some editors (like me) gave up for a while due to edit wars. And the original shortened version wasn't done properly because it was in the middle of an edit war. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
ok. Cool. I can't imagine that these points are contentious. They're factual and elementary to the topic. --Merbabu (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't continually be so worried if every little fact is contentious. Instead, we should concern ourselves with factuality and accuracy. I support Peter Ballard restoring those facts about leadership.--Lester 09:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah - warm and fuzzy hugs all 'round. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming "Life after politics"

In February 2008, John Howard gave a speech to the Nigerian parliament on how to achieve economic prosperity.[3] In December 2008 Howard commented on Mumbai attacks by saying "I have no doubt the terrorists planned it to say to president-elect Obama: 'Don't you imagine because you're replacing President Bush who we despise that we're going to like you … we're not.'" and predicted that the fight against terrorism is going to be with us for a very long time into the future.[4]

I deleted the above sentences yesterday with the comment "rm Nigerian speech and Terrorism comment - I don't think we need to record every speech he gives, the general comment is fine". (The "general comment" refers to the preceding sentences, that he's signed up with a speech agency and what his speech titles are). It's been restored without comment. I'm deleting it again, but I'd appreciate thoughts on whether it's appropriate to do so. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

agreed. We're meant to create an article with a narrative not cobble together miscellaneous events and quotes. I was tempted to remove it myself but resisted.--Merbabu (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree. --Surturz (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The other quote on Mumbai attacks was added to show that Howard did not change his positions after retirement and also to add on his approach to Obama and of course it has got nothing to do with the general comment about him being available for political speeches at all but it seems nobody cares about that but about the trimming.--Avala (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect, it's not really news that John Howard hasn't changed his mind on something. As for the speech itself: It seems to me that he was due to give a speech (at a Hebrew University), the Mumbai attacks had just happened, so naturally Howard offered an opinion in his speech. As far as I can see, only the Australian Jewish News (who presumably had people at the Hebrew Univerity speech anyway) reported it.[5] It might be notable if the mainstream media picked it up, but the media didn't think it was very notable, so why should we? If Howard says something and it generates lots of news, then that's a different matter. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
We could usefully trim similar articles. Unless there is significant reaction to a post-politics speech (or an in-politics speech, for that matter) then we don't need to include it. Maybe if JH changed his mind on the republic thing, that'd be a speech worth including.

[edit] 1985 Leadership contest

After Peacock resigned as leader in September 1985, Howard was elected leader by a very convincing margin, but it was not unopposed. Can anyone find or remember who he defeated in the leadership ballot? Peter Ballard (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. I also put the party room numbers in the article. Perhaps that was overdoing the detail. Feel free to remove the numbers, as long as we don't revert to the incorrect statement that it was unopposed. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Another county heard from

In a 2009 poll, he was voted as Australia's favorite prime minister since World War II.[1][2]

Timeshift admits WP:RS but doesn't think this notable. Notability is for whether a person is included, not whether we include information within an existing bio. Political views aside, I think that this is worth discussing, rather than just edit-warring with a new editor and sniping at one another in edit summaries. --Pete (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Most interestingly, respondents were also asked to name their favourite prime minister since World War II, which produced a win for John Howard on 28 per cent. This is largely because those supporting Liberals (45 per cent of the total) showed no interest for contenders other than Howard and Bob Menzies (11 per cent), whereas the Labor loyalist vote was split between Kevin Rudd (20 per cent), Bob Hawke (12 per cent), Gough Whitlam (9 per cent) and Paul Keating (8 per cent).[6]
The point is, it's a poll without any authority or relevance. Timeshift (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Certainly relevant to his time as Prime Minister, which is what our article is about, mostly. There's a naughty part of me wondering what your reaction might be if another PM had come out on top. You give an analysis of the numbers above, but whether a vote was from a Liberal or a Labor supporter was determined by who they voted for, not how they described themselves. So yes, JH wins in a valid poll. However, I see only three media outlets have picked up the story, and the sample size and methodology aren't much to sing about. --Pete (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, quite naughty. Should we search for all polls and put them on all PM pages? What importance or significance does this particular poll have exactly? Timeshift (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder what this discussion would look like if it had said Howard was the most hated PM? But seriously - what concerns you about this poll's concerns authorit? It has over 1000 respondents and was undertaken by a data research company (see here for the methodology http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/Media/Essential_Report_190109.pdf). It's not Newspoll, but it's got almost the same sample size. As for lack of relevance, I can't possibly see how you could make that argument. What class of opinion poll is "notable enough" to be included in the article? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Most hated would fall in the same catagory. It is one of many polls. Why should one be published and not another? What significance or bearing does it have? Timeshift (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
It is your personal whim to consider it irrelevant because you seem to have a problem with this particular politician. On the other hand The Age, newspaper of record, considers it to be relevant enough for the news article. So it's you vs. the reliable external source and per all Wikipedia rules it's the external source that wins. As for the opinion poll sample, that is how they are done. They don't call each and every single voter. They have methods for this. They have methods to create a representative sample of the whole population. And finally if the approval polls are relevant enough to be in the lead section of the George W. Bush article and stay there for a long time, I don't see the point in claiming how it shouldn't be the case in here as well. It should be in the lead just like in that Bush article.--Avala (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not even going to bother replying to that, what appauling lack of WP:AGF. Here's a bit of my own - your history of the Rudd/Medvedev image and the record-lasting insistance, with eventual defeat after unamimous agreement it didn't fit, clearly leaves you with an axe to grind with me. And thanks Merbabu for agreeing with my position that this poll isn't noteable. Timeshift (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I've missed how that is a lack of good faith. OK, so he said word to the effect that "it's just your opinion" but that unfortunately seems to be quite a normal argument around oz pol. (although, i can't say I agree or are impressed by the post - i just don't understand how AGF comes into it (much less an appalling lack of AGF). --Merbabu (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My gut feeling is this isn't what benefits the encyclopedia. Seems trivial and gimmicky. But, I am open to anyone who can convince me otherwise. --Merbabu (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is quite important to show what is the opinion amongst the population. It's important to know if he was considered popular or not and I think the best time to run such a poll is when they are out of office so this poll is better than those other polls that could be out there that we haven't seen yet. For an example this is inside the lead on GWB "Bush was a popular president for much of his first term, peaking after the September 11 terrorist attacks when he received one of the highest approval rating–90%–of any president in American history to date. His popularity declined sharply during his second term, when he received one of the lowest approval ratings –19%– as well highest disapproval number –69%– in American history." That is the American type of opinion polling which goes throughout the term while what we have here is the overall opinion. As a reader I want to find out what do people of Australia think about this man in general and that poll and the information in the article suits my need. Now obviously some editors who are not impartial have a problem with the poll result but as a neutral reader I just want to find out the result not being bothered with it one way or another. It's just a piece of information for me while some here who have a history of editing which looked like staff editing (removing photo of the current Australian PM and the current President of Russia because...well I don't know why probably as not to show that there is any cooperation with the evil empire because reasons given were changing all the time, first it was lack of text to back the photo then when it was solved we had whatnot reasons from this same user, until we came to the core - that we just need to remove it altogether because, gee Rudd and Medvedev, that's not a good thing for PR) have that kind of unsubstantial problem with the information they dislike so they disguise it and claim there is some actual problem that can be found in Wiki rules. Again the same pattern of making up new issues appears here. First the source wasn't good, then when we get the very reliable source the problem is something else like the poll has no authority (ruled by a Wikipedian user) etc. Per all Wiki rules this can be included and is reliable and notable and only those who might have subjective view on the matter can say different.--Avala (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Using Wiki rules, this poll is relevant, well sourced, and adds information and interest to the article. I can't see any good reason to exclude it. Howard's place in the hearts and minds of the Australian people is something that is indisputably pertinent to this article. We should give the figures for first, second and third, so as not to mislead the readers. --Pete (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Skyring(Pete), in the past you've argued to exclude other information because it doesn't carry enough references. Why have a lower acceptance criteria for this piece of information? Opinion polls on any politician should only be mentioned if they are repeated across multiple polling agencies, and also show a pattern over a period of time. One time slice from one polling company does not demonstrate relevance.--Lester 20:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
While the inconstant standards of the left-wing editors are always amusing, in this instance I agree with them and think that opinion polls of this nature are ephemeral and inconsequential in an encyclopaedia article. In terms of wikilawyering, I would argue for exclusion based on WP:WEIGHT, rather than WP:RS or WP:N. The reference seemingly fulfils these last two. There are, however, ample quotations of various polls and election results extant in the article which already establish Howard's popularity. --Surturz (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to fight to the death over this one. I wanted some reasonable discussion rather than Timeshift edit-warring with a good faith contributor. Looks like overall popularity roughly equates to number of elections won. What bothers me is the way editors line up to keep the biographies of their team players sweet, and those on the opposing team as full of bile as possible, whilst staying within accepted wikipractice. I understand why they do this, but we should be above this.--Pete (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The lack of good faith is disturbing. Timeshift (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree. If you want to edit-war with a new contributor - hence the title of this section - try a bit of good faith before hitting the revert button with a snarky comment. Please. --Pete (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, hypocrisy destroys good faith, but I'm sure you know that. --Surturz (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The way I see it, to include it on its own would look out of place and contrived (like Howard fanboys putting in a good poll for the hell of it). However I do believe it supports a well reported theme which is that Howard was very well liked during his term (as argued by Pete). How about it be used as supporting evidence for the claim of wide popularity? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I like your general thinking here; i called it "gimmicky", but "contrived" probably sums it up better. It does support a well-reported theme, but I also have my doubts about the reliability of the method/poll (which is different to the reliability of the sources reporting it with which I have no problem). Also, as a concept it is fundamentally flawed - how can there be in 2009 a poll that accurately compares people's opinions of, say for example, Menzies, Hawke, and Howard. Ie, it's not just the method of the poll, but the whole concept is flawed. On balance, I think this shouldn't be here as it currently stands. Perhaps better would be a discussion of polling for the Prime Minister. It comes in every now and then but it is underdeveloped. Does anyone know of an easy source showing the polling of the PM over the 11 years? --Merbabu (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I think "popularity" of Prime Ministers is a bit moot, since they must always go to the elections every few years, survive party room ballots slightly more often than that - a genuinely unpopular person couldn't stay PM for long. Also, a PM's popularity is always measured in comparison to the Leader of the Opposition. More informative is the nature of their electoral appeal. Hawke's common touch, Howard's use of talkback, Keating's verbal wit etc - this is what we should be writing about, not opinion polls. Generally a PM will be "popular" in some sense, up until the last few months/years before losing office. --Surturz (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Am i thus correct in saying that Yeti Hunter, Surturz, and myself are suggesting that while the general theme it supports is OK, inclusion of the news item is flawed (to some extent), and that we'd be better off using official polling - such as Gallop, etc? --Merbabu (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that's got it. Nobody's making loud noises over this one. Everyone's had an opportunity to speak. I'm concerned about Timeshift edit-warring with a new contributor, rather than discussing it, but that's par for the course around here. Which reminds me. Whatever happened to that war crimes thing. Way some people were talking, JH was about to be hauled off to The Hague any moment, but I don't think that happened. --Pete (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Which by the way I never argued for. Your parochial holier-than-thou, not to mention contradictory attitude of late is rather disturbing Skyring. Timeshift (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the key then is for all of us to stop commenting on other editors, and focus on the content at hand. Yes, it's been said before, we're all hypocritical on this point to some extent, but there's always value in saying it again. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I think, Pete, that it's important to note that *everyone* here in this dispute actually agreed with you on the "war crimes" thing. The editors pushing that particular barrow are not in this discussion, so it's probably not the best choice of "controversial issue" to highlight. Orderinchaos 11:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Merbabu. Including the poll would be undue WP:WEIGHT. Nature of Howard's popularity is worthy of inclusion; fluctuations in his popularity should be described using more reputable polls such as newspoll or gallup. --Surturz (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how any of you can actually think that you are the ones deciding which polls are reputable and which are not. It's beyond original research, it's beyond ridiculous actually. If you put yourself above such papers as newspapers of record and still think you are editing in good faith, neutrally and that your edits are verifiable and notable you are wrong. It's not my intention to fight with anyone but Wikipedia has it's rules which don't allow anyone to publish unsourced things here nor to remove the already added information that is well sourced (like here). What makes me sure that I am right is the fact that the user that's the loudest assumes an absurd claim for the sake of argument, for the sake of removing the thing he doesn't like. When this is pointed out he says we are not assuming good faith. Well I am sorry but you can't defend with that every time. I went through this and the current PM of Australia talk pages and noticed the pattern of vigorous fighting to include the most negative things in this article and keep the positive things out and vice versa in the other article. We can't assume gf after so many cases of the same non neutral behaviour that is actually harming the overall project.--Avala (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
If the wikipedia community feels a certain way, then so be it... though I realise you may fail to understand this considering how much you pushed the Rudd/Medvedev image issue. Newspoll is the poll of polls, I think it should be used as the polling reference, and others agree. Timeshift (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Can it be shown that there are other major newspapers polling Howard's popularity since he left office? My criteria for inclusion is to show multiple sources for the fact you want to include, and to show it over a period of time. If there's only a single one-off reference, it probably demonstrates that there is little public interest in it.--Lester 01:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ "Australians still love Howard: poll". The Age. 2009-01-19. http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/australians-still-love-howard-poll-20090119-7kpa.html. Retrieved 2009-01-25. 
  2. ^ "John Howard Is PM No.1". OneIndia. http://living.oneindia.in/insync/2009/john-howard-220109.html. Retrieved 2009-01-25. 

[edit] Remove unsafe link

I removed the 'oneindia.in' link because McAfee reports that it breaches browser security here --Surturz (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure i understand this, but I will take your word for it. :-) But, this doesn't mean that it is unverified. There is no reason to doubt this source, or the alternate source provided. What I doubt is not the existence of the poll but (a) it's veracity as a concept and (b) it's use in this article. --Merbabu (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Restructure

I've just restructured the remainder of the PM'ship section. Ie, I've dispersed the info in thematically based sections into rough chronological order within the existing by-term structure. But, it's not purely chronological - ie, I have kept some bits together thematically. eg, the GST over the 1st two terms, the "when I'm 64" comments, and the refusal to make "the apology" i grouped together. There's probably more opportunity for a little more thematic based consolidation, but I recommend it on a *mostly* by-term basis.

Note, I did not remove any info - at least in the three restructure edits. I might have rephrased a few sentences to make it fit better, and there is most probably more re-prhasing to do to make it fit/flow better. And, this is not to say I don't want to see more changes - but I thought it about time that I re-structured it. Perhaps thematic-based sub headings can go under the terms, which I've included here in my userspace as a sample. But, i think it's a bit dodgy largely for the same reasons I'm arguing against theme based structure here.

Why this change? I agree that in theory, thematic structure has some merit. However, it just didn't work here, and indeed, I think it is very hard to get it to work anywhere, particularly if the subject is controversial. SOme of the problems here were the selection of what was to go together - the mere existence of some of these themes was POV and pointy. And the lack of others, was also a major POV problem. Based on this page's record, I really don't hold much faith in our ability to put together a well-written article based on themes.The recent series "The Howard Years" was, IMO, excellently structured. It was themed, but themed within a chronological term-based structure. I thought it worked very well. THe structure was straight up and down and indeed, Howard said he wouldn't have approved of the venture if it wasn't by term. I have tried to emulate this structure (although, the Howard Government article has more opportunity to develop this structure fully. And, the article itself was in a bad state - some of the PM info was chronological, the rest was forced awkwardly in themes.

So, in summary - it's still by themes (I'd argue more so now with more themes developed) but these themes are within a by-term order. And, I didn't remove stuff in that change. And, it's not my end to changes to the article - but it is an important line drawn in the sand. I've tied to be very gentle in my approach and tried to cater to sensitivities over this article, and hopefully I've explained myself well enough (and I hope the changes speak for themselves). Rather than a quick revert, I hope people can mull over the new look, and/or ask questions, or help me tweak it - I'm not saying it's perfect, yet. --Merbabu (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the changes as made are a significant step towards where we need to be with this article. Agreed that chronology is the way to move with this. Good work! Orderinchaos 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Support a restructure. Now there is a line under the Howard govt, it is a good time to get some real quality into this article, and establish some sort of narrative. Hybrid chrono/topic sounds like a good way to proceed. --Surturz (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
nice to see your agreement but did u miss the fact that I have actually already done it? Yeah - hybrid chrono/thematic with chrono taking priority is a good way to put it. --Merbabu (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I did notice :-) Wasn't sure if you'd finished though. --Surturz (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Surturz, for me, the restructure is largely complete – perhaps there is some tinkering to do, ie, I can see now a few places where the old wording/syntax doesn’t quite fit/flow. However, I still want to continue with research and more changes similar to what I’ve been doing of late.
ie, I really think there is room to trim some sections. Ie, that Iraq and opinion polling section. Don’t you think that quality of wording, rather than quantity is better at making a point? Better to be smoother and less wordy, rather than the current somewhat pointy and tedious. What really is the main point that is pertinent to Howard? Suggest that war was undoubtedly unpopular when first proposed, then (some?) polling suggests it was less unpopular at the time of invasion, yet then it was undoubtedly unpopular again afterwards. Can’t we just say it was generally unpopular and maybe put the polls into the footnotes – even Howard himself said it was unpopular. Also, the discussion of Latham and Crean. Do we need all that? Or is there a more pertinent point to Howard that can be said more succinctly? These are just two examples.
And it’s not just readability – the trimming will also make room for a few more points that are likely to be raised in the future.
PS, what about the heading sample in my user space? (link above). I like the idea in principle, but the implementation seems to just bring out the problems I was trying to solve with the restructure. --Merbabu (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Support YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Returning to this article after some time, I see distinct improvement in structure and topic inclusion, will peruse again for suggestions - thanks Merabu Observoz (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removed pic

Canterbury Boys' High School Cricket Team. John Howard is in the front row, 2nd from right

Good pic. However, there is a very larg text box down the right side, and a narrow pic on the left. This picture was placed into the relevant text near details of Howard's schooling.

The problem is that when the text box is long, it pushes any picture below it down the page, taking the subsequent text with it. If your screen is very narrow, then the body of text in the article extends further and there is no apparent problem. However, on my wide screen there is a gap in the middle of the section that is two inches deep. This is not acceptable formatting. It is a problem frequently created by the insertion of, or adding material to long text boxes. (I hate them!)

I tried moving the pic left but it's a messy solution, so I have removed it. Amandajm (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the problem of the info box. They are often tedious. I think it would be a great shame to lose that pic and would rather have the info box culled. I too have that problem with layout on different computers (and in other articles – Indonesia for one). --Merbabu (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the relevent and interesting picture for uninteresting talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.141.119 (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Howard on Hanson

"Howard's initial silence concerning the immigration views of Pauline Hanson—a disendorsed Liberal Party candidate and independent MP—was widely criticised in the press as an endorsement of Hanson's views.[50] Howard said that she was entitled to express her opinion, that many others would share it,[51] and that to denounce her would "elevate it". Howard repudiated her views seven months after Hanson's controversial maiden parliamentary speech.[50]"

I'm no fan of Howard's handling of Hanson, but is that summary (taken from "The Howard Years") really fair? I distinctly remember parliament passing a motion condemning Hanson's policies - I've got a reference in a personal email from early November 1996 but I can't find a ref. Can someone help? Or was it just seen as not a strong enough reaction? (I certainly remember it much more clearly than the 1997 speech). Peter Ballard (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Labor did try to paint Howard as racist. No, Howard was not. Under Howard, immigration (quietly) reached record levels - even asian immigration.[7][8] I think immigration was only ever reduced in Howard's first term. --Surturz (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Peter, you did add "widely criticized" - which i think *is* unfair and weaselly. Better would have been to keep it as "His critics said/felt/etc...". Now the question is how wide is "wide" and we get this drilling down and expansion on who was his critics.
Also, that immigration increased doesn't mean that the Howard-Hanson controversy didn't happen. And because immigration increased under the Howard Govt doesn't mean that Howard was a racist and it doesn't mean he wasn't. In fact, immigration per se wasn't really connected - not like it was in later years with asylum seekers, citizen test, THe Hanson-Howard controversy was a big issue in the first term regardless of immigration - to make the connection is synthesis.
Also, because Parliament passed the motion, doesn't mean that Howard himself agreed - indeed, many people within the Lib party weren't happy with his action (or lack of).
In summary, the Howard-Hanson thing was big news and dragged on for a while. I felt I'd represented both sides fairly. It doesn't matter if we here think he was racist or not, the point is there was a controversy over it that lasted for months (years?), and it should be represented here as one of the 3 or 4 defining aspects of his first term. Yes, my wording was vague (his critics...) but it was certainly neutral. Indeed, keeping it vague was an advantage, because now we are going to argue and twist the prose around into all sorts of details about who actually said it. It's going to be worse than the contract law prose about the Iraq war opinion polls. --Merbabu (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It's OK to remove "widely" if you want - I was remembering the very wide criticism, but I had a blind spot, forgetting it was largely of Hanson (duh!) not Howard. And I agree with that immigration numbers is a separate issue (have they ever decreased under any recent PM?). BTW The Howard Years transcripts are up on the ABC web site and look look like a pretty good resource. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Peter, I'm going to back it up further with more resources - then propose new wording. The fact I didn't provide enough references was in retrospect a problem. Yes, I tried to sum up a lot in a few sentences (and will continue to do so), but I really though i gave both sides a good balanced hearing ie, "his critics..." combined with "Howard's response was..." but much of that has been changed around today. I certainly didn't intend to paint him as "suspect on race" or not suspect. It was just a big issue focussed on Howard more than the govt. But, as you seem to have been around and politically aware at the time, you seem to have some sense of the times. I remember very clearly sitting relieved on my verandah in Semarang reading about Howard's "repudiation" on the front page of The Jakarta Post, and discussing it with curious neighours who had read it in Kompas. As for Howard Years transcripts, i tried not to quote the refs on this page and Howard Govt, but it provided me with a number of good ideas and sanity checks. Sprung! --Merbabu (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't mean to go off topic (ahem), but ref #38 is highly suspect. I recall the book covered the Australian League of Rights well, because I was involved with the CEC at the time, but otherwise was as unfair as Macintyre's Introduction to the Culture Wars—basically a 300 page rant about how none of the Liberal "elites" have actually "studied" history. Ottre 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Merbabu's analysis is completely off-kilter. Who said anything about removing the section? Of course it was a big deal at the time. These straw man arguments are quite awful, Merbabu. "Widely criticised in the press" is supported by the refs and not weaselly. "Howard's critics say..." is CLEARLY weaselly. What critics? "Howard's critics" is not a well-defined group at all. There may well have been critics of Howard that said he didn't support Hanson enough! It is fairly well known now that Howard's strategy was to attempt to starve Hanson of publicity. This strategy failed, probably because the Liberal wets couldn't keep quiet about her. The reference even states that the Asian press were hostile to Howard on this issue, and Merbabu is basing his/her views on that! Ballard's text is much better than the original "denounce"-filled version. If we are going to talk about 'sense of the times' we must remember that the ALP at that stage was somewhat electorally beholden to ethnic groups who favoured family reunion over skills-based immigration, also that Keating et al tended to branded anyone who suggested a reduction in immigration as 'racist'. The real issues were skills vs family reunion, and integration vs multiculturalism. The asian immigration/race stuff was the 6 o'clock news version of the debate. --Surturz (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Surturz, now you are acknowledging an issue was notable and verifiable, thus isn't it a little tendentious to argue over the wording "Howard's critics...". Either you are arguing it's notable and one of the major points of his first term, or you are saying there actually wasn't much criticism. Which one is it? If it was the former, then you show some common sense and stop nit picking, but if you think it is the latter (ie, not notable), then you had better prove the references incorrect. As for the word "denounce" it is no longer in the text and no-one argued with the change so why are you still bringing it up here and on my user page?--Merbabu (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm bringing it up because you claimed the addition of 'eventually' was POV, but ignored the existence of the word "denounce" which is clearly much more emotive. I am not being inconsistent, tendentious or nit-picking as you claim, "Howard's critics" is clearly WP:WEASEL and you should not be defending the term. We should say who was criticising him - the press, or the Labor party, or an ethnic lobby, whoever - and we shouldn't be asserting that it is coupled with his Asian immigration statements unless it is WP:V. And stop trying to infer that I don't think the item should be in the article, I have never thought that nor ever tried to delete the text. I have already asked you not to use straw man arguments. --Surturz (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah - i still maintain that "eventually denounced/repudiated" is a judgement. Futher, it is not necessary as the actual time frame (ie, a fact rather than judgement) is there. I've also said a few times on my talk page that I cannot explain it to you any clearer. If it is so innocuous, then why do you insist on it? As for the word "denounce", please refer to my post above. There were many more than just the press criticising. So, I ask you how wide is "widely criticised". "His critics" (because they were criticizing him as you are one of mine on this point -it's not rocket science) is much more succinct and is less weasally than "widely". By using "his critics" I'm trying to avoid the mess that is the Iraq war section which you insist on having. --Merbabu (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Postnominals

We have AC in the lede, but AC SSI LLB in the infobox. Two issues:

  • LLB is the sort of postnom that's normally used only in educational contexts. It represents an educational achievement, not an honour or award. So I'd prefer it if it weren't mentioned at all.
  • If we use SSI, we should have it in both places. He may not use it on whatever his letterhead is these days, but he's entitled to do so if he wants. Therefore it's appropriate for us to use it; therefore the lede should be "John Howard AC SSI", as should the infobox. Any comments before I change it? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
University of Sydney style guide indicates that awards, educational qualifications and parliamentary designations should be interspersed. I think it informative to have all postnominals that Howard is entitled to use, whether or not he actually uses them. This article is not his business card, we should be complete. --Surturz (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Re the LL.B. - it is correct to only have it in the infobox but not in the lead. Orderinchaos 02:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
@ Surturz: Of course a university style guide will promote the use of educational postnoms, because they're relevant to that context. Style guides designed for general use do not.
@ Orderinchaos: Where are the WP rules about what goes where? And why are they different? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Which style guide should we use, if not the Sydney University one? Which "style guide for general use" are you using? Do you have some evidence that the Sydney University style guide is prejudiced and not WP:RS? Why on earth would civil awards extinguish educational post noms? --Surturz (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
In answer to the question which Style Guide should you be using if not the Sydney University one, you should be using Wikipedia's Style Guide for Wikipedia articles. You might find this section helpful for dealing with educational postnoms - Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Post-nominal_initials. HTH. Sarah 01:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The WP style guide seems to support education postnoms (where "issued by a country or organization with which the subject has been closely associated"), but doesn't explain why, for example, Gough Whitlam is shown as "Gough Whitlam AC QC", and not "Gough Whitlam AC QC LLB". And many other cases where people had bachelors, masters or doctoral degrees but their educational postnoms are not shown. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Sarah. That's helpful, however, the MOS does not actually say anything about precedence, or absorption. It assumes the editor is familiar with the usage of honorifics, which we aren't. So I reckon the Syd Uni style guide still has a part to play. For Gough Whitlam, I would assume that QC encapsulates LLB (since you can't be a QC without a law degree). This also implies Howard's LLB should go into the article; if we mention Whitlam's legal qualifications, why shouldn't we also mention Howard's? --Surturz (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph implies the opening sentence should be "The Rt Hon John Howard.." (no post-nominals). This supports Orderinchaos, above. --Surturz (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Except that he ain't "The Rt Hon", just "The Hon". Remember the Australia Act 1986? Australians don't get appointed to the UK Privy Council any more. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
QC and LLB are still separate postnoms. If Gough were granted an honorary doctorate of laws, he'd be referred to by the uni in question as "... AC QC LLB", because LLB would be appropriate and relevant in that context. You never see it in any other context. I’ve found something interesting about foreign awards, here. That suggests that Peter Cosgrove is a CNZM, but only uses that postnom in NZ contexts. By that reasoning, Howard would not have SSI except in a Solomon Islands context. It should be mentioned in the text, but should not appear with his name in either the lede or the infobox. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, see the lists of names at the front of Hansard (here's yesterday's Reps) - you'll see AOs, AMs, QCs and SCs mentioned, and lots of MPs, but no educational quals. Does this mean that none of our reps have ever been to uni? Certainly not. My issue with including LLBs and all the rest is that, to be consistent, there would be literally thousands of articles that would need changing. It seems to be well accepted practice that they are not used except in the contexts to which they're relevant. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The other distinction between LLB and QC/SC is that LLB is granted by an educational institution, whereas QC/SC is granted by the state. It's not an offence, in itself, for Joe Bloggs to claim he has an LLB when he doesn't, but it is an offence to put QC/SC after your name if you haven't been given that honour by the state. Same applies for AC, KBE, KCMG, CH and similar state-awarded honours. The fact that you can't became a QC unless you're highly legally qualified and experienced does not make QC a legal qualification. It's an award, not a qualification. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to be corrected on QC/LLB - I was hypothesizing. I'm also happy to be corrected on "The Rt Hon" (for some reason I thought PMs got the "Rt"). I agree SSI is a little dubious. The real issue is whether we want to be complete, or whether we want to reflect common usage. I say complete is better, because WP is an encyclopedia and not everyone knows that Howard has an LLB. It is more informative. --Surturz (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It's fine to let people know that he has an LLB, if you think that's something worth mentioning. We can do that in the text. I've read hundreds of articles where reference is made to the person's studies; what they studied is mentioned (e.g. law, engineering, science), and also where they did it (e.g. University of Sydney; or sometimes just the name of the city, unless it's really important to specify Uni of Sydney vs. Uni of NSW vs. Macquarie vs ...). But, generally speaking, the precise name of the qualification does not merit a mention, and it certainly doesn't merit a postnominal. It's enough to know that Howard studied law at wherever. By all means provide details, but beware of turning articles into resumes.
Just on the Rt Hon thing, it used to be the case that PMs were automatically invited to join the Privy Council (and some other people - see Right Honourable#Australia for the surviving ones). The majority accepted. Whitlam declined. Fraser accepted, but he was the last one, and there won't be any more. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be The Hon. John Howard AC SSI and under it in smaller letters LLB (USyd) DUniv (Bond) and so on and so forth. The postnomial, unless you're specifically looking at education shouldn't be in that first line as part of the AC etc part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skoido (talk • contribs) 10:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring over Howard's response to Hanson

Care to explain why all my attempts to improve our coverage of the above have been reverted, without reason? The current wording is hardly biased as it is taken from the popular Review of the Reviewers column, and Matchett's interpretation has been supported (most recently echoed by a Dr. Kathleen Weekley) several times over the past five years in the left-wing Overland. I'm sure the book itself provides a more balanced view of Howard's comments regarding Hanson than the ABC news article does.

I don't accept the argument that it adds nothing to context, because the entire paragraph should be structured around the political culture of the time and (particularly) cynics within the Liberal Party. Dissatisfaction with party politics was a major influence on voting patterns in the 1998 election.

Moreover, I don't know if the editors involved are treating this separately from earlier contributions. In hindsight, my first edit was n't useful at all, but that's no reason for Merbabu to completely ignore me when I asked him to discuss how four pages of Andrew Markus prove definitively that the One Australia policy "opposed multiculturalism", and OIC to remove another perfectly valid source. Ottre 19:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

While, to be honest, I personally don't think your latest contributions in this area were necessary, I agree with you that it is poor form for other editors to simply revert your changes with no discussion on this page. Particularly hypocritical is Merbabu's rebuke to use the talk page, when not doing so his/herself. As for your specific complaints:
  • changing the reference you added does not seem to be necessary - the text is already referenced adequately with 'The End of Certainty' by Kelly.
  • Assuming the Goot reference is an WP:RS, this 'context' sentence would be better in the Howard Government article, since this is a biography article and the sentence is not particularly about John Howard.
By the way, when you sign talk page contributions, you can use four tildes to automatically provide links to your personal pages as explained here. Apologies if you already know this and are intentionally signing a different way. --Surturz (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The addition is a non-notable opinion. Indeed you will notice that there aren't many opinions here in the article. Why should this one go in instead of 100s (1000's???) of others. There are many more notable opinions that dont get included what's special about this one? It is poorly worded, incomprehensible (what does it mean?) and adding a reference to an opinion doesn't make it either neutral or relevant. It's an esoteric tangential addition that doesn't fit in a fact-based encyclopedia. It would great for a first year political science essay contrasting political appeal within the electorate. Also, could you please sort out your signature--Merbabu (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You do realise Goot is a published political scientist? There is no more reliable source available on Howard reverting to his old form RE cynicism. Ottre 22:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
A published political scientist is the criteria for inclusion of an opinion? We would have a one very long article then. And don't alter other people's comments.[9] Apart from being against wikipedia policy it is not a great way to win friends or more importantly to influence people. As I said, you seem to misunderstand some wikipedia basics. --Merbabu (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
How nice of you to say. In this article from a decade later he is quoted as saying "I followed Pauline Hanson quite closely", which makes his review notable enough among political scientists. You are right that it should be double-checked for inclusion. Ottre 11:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Howard dragging his feet on Campbell Enquiry

Timeshift added, and Lester re-added, text quoting an opinion piece in The Australian claiming that Howard "dragged his feet" on the Campbell enquiry. The admin User:Orderinchaos has previously indicated (click here) that opinion pieces, even if they are on the front page of a quality newspaper, cannot be used to insert commentary into articles. While I disagree with Orderinchaos' ruling, I think all editors should abide by it, to avoid double standards. --Surturz (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It largely depends on who wrote the piece and the tone of the article. But the article in question[10] is clearly an opinion piece attacking Howard, and I believe the author (Michael Costello) is a former Keating staffer. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The offending edit is here. I actually reworded Timeshift's text, before Surturz deleted it. You could argue about whether or not the text is good or bad, but it doesn't break any rules regarding reliable sources.--Lester 00:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Surturz is comparing chalk and cheese with the OIC example and my example. My edit is very straight forward and isn't OR-SYN'y, simply stating the truth, that Howard dragged his feet on the Campbell enquiry, however in that example, you're taking a complete opinion and is very OR-SYN'y. The article in question, though by a Keating staffer, uses facts to establish that Howard very much overstretches his economic legacy. Even Malcolm Fraser agrees. Not a single cabinet submission. Read the article. But I don't care enough to have a long discussion over this, leave it out, let the readers think Howard pushed Fraser for neoliberal economic reforms. Let the pro-Howard article stay. It's not as if anyone reads up on Howard anymore anyway. Timeshift (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

can we take Fraser as a reliable non-partisan opinion on Howard's treasurership? --Merbabu (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you think we should only include positive, not negative views on Howard? Fraser is a former Liberal PM! Read the article in it's entirety. This bit is telling: "Fraser points out that Howard cannot produce a single cabinet submission in which Howard proposed any measure to open up and modernise the Australian economy that was knocked back. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Fraser's word has to be accepted." Timeshift (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I looked up the Campbell Report in The End of Certainty by Kelly, which I think several of us have used as a WP:RS. This is an excerpt (p78):
But the challenge for the government was immense since the treasury opposed the report's core and the Reserve Bank was equivocal.
Howard decided on a 'bit by bit' approach to Cabinet for fear of seeing the entire Campbell Report lost. Fraser had a farmer's suspicion of banks and in Visbord's view 'his opposition to deregulation was to moves that could have given the banks more influence, more freedom, more power'. The dominant Fraser-National Party Cabinet axis wanted to keep controls on bank lending rates, where Howard favoured the principle of deregulation. Howard was unable to overcome his two chief opponents, his own leader Fraser and his chief adviser, treasury secretary John Stone. Howard never asked Cabinet to float the exchange rate because he knew the Fraser-Anthony axis would kill any such submission.
This seems to contradict Timeshift's article on Howard's motive. The facts are the same - Campbell report was not pushed in Cabinet by Howard - but given widespread antipathy to (at the time) revolutionary economic ideas, I think it is reasonable to assume that Howard was cautious, rather than himself an opponent of the report.
I would argue Kelly is more reliable source since he wasn't a Labor staffer writing in the middle of an election campaign. Can we we can say something like "In proposing the reforms detailed in the Campbell report, Howard adopted an incremental approach to Cabinet, as there was wide opposition to deregulation within the government and the treasury"?--Surturz (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm "timeshort" today. ;-) Will consider and comment on issue over the weekend. Be nice everyone. Issues not editors. Collaboration not sarcasm. Compromise not trenches. Ponder the other opinion rather than wear ear muffs. --Merbabu (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Read the existing reference from the article (Link). Howard's stance on banking deregulation is different to his stance on other financial deregulation, and is different to his stance on the Campbell enquiry. Howard didn't want the enquiry to proceed.Lester 22:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Lester, I couldn't see anything in the ref you indicated that Howard didn't want the enquiry to proceed. Which page should I be looking at? --Surturz (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, me and Surturz agreeing on something :) I am a firm believer in using only reliable sources for controversial assertions, and suggesting that a serving Prime Minister deliberately delayed something for political reasons (while it might well be the case, but could have other explanations) is what I would consider a fairly strong allegation to make. Depending on context, it may be possible to state that such allegations were made by others, and cite those. But it depends on whether those claims were sufficiently publicised (i.e. we're not becoming the main source for the info). Orderinchaos 00:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
He was actually treasurer at the time, and a long way from having the political clout that he would later obtain. The issue is not whether Howard failed to push the Campbell report hard in Cabinet (we all agree he didn't push the Campbell report hard in Cabinet as Treasurer). Timeshift9's poor quality reference implies that Howard could have implemented the reforms but didn't because he didn't believe in them. My RS reference asserts that Howard was a strong believer in the reforms espoused in the Campbell report, but didn't force them through because of the simple facts that Prime Minister Fraser didn't support them, Howard's own department didn't support them, and Howard knew he wouldn't be able to get Cabinet to agree to them. An independent reserve bank, floating exchange rate, etc are all the orthodox philosophies now, but at the time were revolutionary. --Surturz (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
First, it's really not necessary to accuse another editor of adding "poor quality" references. If you don't like the references, talk about the references, without linking "poor quality" to another Wikipedian. Second, the replacement reference "Kelly (1994), pp. 78." is not online, and doesn't give enough information to find it. As it stands, that reference can't be used. Third, the Treasury (which at the time was run by Howard) was against instigating the Campbell Committee, as stated by the reference by author Bell (which is online). Yet you added text to say that Howard was in favour it. Whether Howard, in later years, agreed with the floating of the dollar is a different issue. The fact remains that Treasury didn't want the Campbell Committee to go ahead.--Lester 20:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
only online references can be used? I am not aware of this policy. --Merbabu (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I have already quoted, verbatim, the text of my reference above. I have put the full reference into the article for User:Lester's benefit. I am not maligning Timeshift9's character; I am simply stating a fact that the reference he provided is low quality. I am sure there is no WP policy stating that dead tree books cannot be used. IMHO they are usually better quality than online references. --Surturz (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
No you didn't, Surturz, and you know very well that when this conversation started there was no meaningful reference. After a tirade of incivility at me (EDIT: Now deleted), telling me I should be embarrassed for not being capable of clicking on your wonderful reference, you later went back and slipped in the reference (diff) details which later made it clickable. Your little schemed attempting to make others look foolish has failed, and is now revealed for all to see.--Lester 11:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Grow up guys. I'm sure everyone cares as little as me as to who started it. Just comment on the edits/issues at hand. Just as well I haven't looked into it in any detail. But, it seems the norm - two extreme POV's battling out that once again the middle non-controversial ground is booted out. If this is balance, then it's not good. We need neutrality and middle ground, not a balance of POV's. --Merbabu (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
"two extreme POV's", yes, thanks, Merbabu. Throw some petrol into the mix.--Lester 12:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, two very opposite POV's. Why can't people just write factual stuff they know won't be controversial. Middle of the road stuff. The new section's a mess, as is the Iraq section with the tedious quoting of this poll said this, but that poll said that, etc, etc. That's all I ask - just info. Why don't you try it? --Merbabu (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
This crazy discussion started when a section of referenced text was deleted shortly after it was added. I didn't add it the first time round, but I re-added it purely because there was no discussion at the time, and no valid reason given for its deletion. I want people to initiate a discussion at the time any referenced content is deleted. If there's something else I added that's POV or non-factual, then it would help more if you were specific about what it was. I had nothing to do with Iraq content you mention.Lester 13:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Look Lester, I apologise for the rant, which made incorrect accusations and which I did revert. However, I can't understand why you don't think I added the verbatim text above when it is still there. Here is a diff in any case. I did subsequently fix the reference to meet your concerns, even though the existing referencing ("Kelly (1994) p78") matches WP policy for repeated references (see Wikipedia:Ref#Shortened_footnotes). The issue is, perhaps, that the original reference did not come first. It would have been more helpful if you had simply fixed my referencing in the article, rather than trying to score points. Since you have been involved in the discussion, you must have already seen my verbatim quote, above, and must have known what book I was quoting.
It might be a losing strategy to appeal to common sense, but consider the following points:
  • End of Certainty was written in 1992 and revised in 1994, well before Howard returned to the leadership of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. A constant theme is how Howard and Hewson's radical (at the time) economic beliefs pushed the Liberal party into economic rationalism, away from 'Fraserism'.
  • Future Directions presaged a lot of his policy as PM, and was released for the 1988 election. --Surturz (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • He introduced the GST, a known election loser for the coalition. Common sense would tell you that a dilletante does not do something like that. It is a reasonable assertion that Howard developed his economic theories while he was Fraser's treasurer, and then implemented those theories when he became PM.
Considering all this, if we are going to try to imply that Howard stole Keating's ideas, we are going to need a lot more evidence than an attack piece written by a Keating staffer during an election campaign. Do you honestly believe that Howard came to the economic rationalist party late in his political career?
The ludicrous thing about this argument is that we essentially agree. Of course Hawke/Keating floated the dollar, deregulated banks etc. These are easily verifiable. But to assert that Treasurer Howard (as opposed to the Treasury) didn't believe in these policies is ludicrous. Not even Timeshift9's original reference by Michael Costello says that. --Surturz (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] International relations (Yodoyono/China/Clinton/Blair

1) The paragraph on East Timor and 1999 rightly refers to strained relations with Indonesia. I think, for completeness, the article has to also note that the relationship was subsequently repaired to the point where President Yodoyono would describe it as being at the highest point in the history of the two nations (I know a citation is available somewhere for this). Howard's prompt and supportive actions in the aftermath of the Tsunami were partly the cause of this and a warm bond developed between the leaders. The billion dollar aid package is perhaps the most significant of the remaining Howard policy omissions of the existing article?

2) Howard's position on China could be a good inclusion too: a steady expansion of the economic relationship was nurtured throughout Howard's reign which I believe he personally sights as his chief foreign policy accomplishment.

3) Also should the point be made that Howard lobbied hard for (an initially reluctant) Bill Clinton to support E. Timor action, as this is a significant point in the history of Howard's management of US relations? "We have supported you in every conflict and now we need your help" (from memory this was Howard's account in ABC's Howard Years.

4) Tony Blair and Howard had the closest relationship of Aust-British PMs in living memory. Should reference to this be made? Blair speaks of Howard as having had a rare clarity of intellect and strength of purpose as a leader (see ABC's extended Howard Years interview with Blair). He also recalls Howard's response to the 2005 London bombings as the greatest exposition by any leader of "what we are fighting for": that exposition can be found at http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=710702n

None of these points need be long 17:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your comments. I think there are some excellent points. A general comment is that some of these might be better placed in Howard Government. The Asian relationships are interesting. For someone (and a government) that was so heavily pilloried in its early years (and in many cases rightly), towards the end it had achieved some very impressive results. Specifically:
1) I had intended to include Howard's relationship with SBY (Yudhoyono) or more broadly with Indonesia. You are right - it certainly did bounce back after East TImor with the Bali Bombing cooperation and the tsunami efforts. Indeed, SBY and Howard developed a close personal relationship, but mentioning that didn't seem to be as popular on this page as was emphasizing Howard's relationship with Bush.
2) Certainly the China economic relations were very important and the government did a lot to foster that. However, is this something for this article or Howard Government? There's been two criteria for deciding what goes in here: it was a big event for the term, and Howard had a major role in it. Hence we end up with East TImor, Iraq, GST, Workchoices, Republic debate, Port Arthur, Wik, Economy, - all the really big stand out issues. I think we ended up with about 1/2 dozen issues per term which is good I think. Perhaps, we need to include the China exports boom in the economy. Just 1/2 a sentence as you allude to.
3) Howard did a lot of lobbying to get INTERFET off the ground - from memory he was actually at an APEC summit at the time, and indeed, he depended on Clinton's response and influence. It's kind of mentioned in the the sentence that starts "In September 1999, " but maybe it can be more specific - I suggest not adding to the word count though.
4) Not so sure about this one. Perhaps a mention of Blair where we mention his relationship with Bush.
I might go ahead and see if I can address some of these in the article. --Merbabu (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we are largely on the same page - although I still think reference to the closeness to British PM is worth noting, especially for international readers. I think the "Bush's buddy" analysis needs inclusion of course, but Britain, Indonesia, Chinese government relations each also reached historic highs over Howard's reign (as well as historic lows in the case of Indonesia). In his later years as PM Howard was high in his praise of Indonesia's democratic transformation choosing his addresses to the Irish and Canadian Parliaments to promote Indonesia's reform record. President Hu of China also chose Australia as the first foreign country to visit and was the first Chinese leader to address the Australian Parliament (at Howard's invitation). Howard was also a fan of boosting India's profile, so was prepared to sell Uranium to them and supported the linking up of the democracies of Asia in a military alliance (a policy scrapped by Rudd as "overly ideological"). These things are significant to the Howard-the-man article because of the Central allegation against Howard by Keating in the 1990s that "Howard wouldn't be able to deal with Asia", and the references already made to Howard's comments about immigration in the 1980s. Observoz (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Xa-xa. The most salient point? For the first two years in Iraq, the ADF had the worst terms of engagement of any coalition force because Howard didn't move close enough to Blair. Ottre 10:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Public Regard"?

That poll of 1000 people is an extremely poor source for information on how Howard is held in the "public regard". If that's the best example you can find, it shouldn't be there. Garth M (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm - i think removal was good. It kinda seemed notable at the time - or at least it could have been reasonably argued at the time as notable, but really, it's nothing compared to the rest of the items in the article. --Merbabu (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree. --Surturz (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotect}} under Honours, add the fact he won the Australian Father of the Year award in 1997. 211.30.125.63 (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Welcome and thanks for contributing. Celestra (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Howard"