Talk:John Howard

National Textiles

I'm surprised that Howard's bailing out of hi brother's company is not mentioned. I think it is notable enough. IIRC< it was quite a big topic at the time. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I recall also that it was a big issue - lots of sources too [1]--Matilda ^talk 07:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Add it, Blnguyen. --Lester 08:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is an issue worth covering - it got considerable coverage at the time and raised considerable questions about favouritism, given that other companies had failed at around the same time and did not get favourable government attention. Orderinchaos 16:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk of war crimes

220.233.31.26 (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)I don't understand why there is no mention of the potential for John Howard to be charged as a War Criminal in view of his illegal invasion of Iraq, a soverign state220.233.31.26 (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess the reason that such speculation is not in the article is because John Howard was never charged with such an offence, and nobody seems to be likely to charge him. For any article, we can't speculate about court trials when the person hasn't yet been charged. I think some people in Europe once moved to charge Donald Rumsfeld with warcrimes, which never succeeded. There was a newspaper article about the likelyhood of warcrimes charges against Howard - I think it may have been the Sydney Morning Herald - which basically said that the next government (ie Rudd) would have to move to charge him, and the standing protocol is that governments don't try to charge leaders of the previous government. Does that answer your question?--Lester 05:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we were meant to take that seriously... and even if we were, it's all WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OPINION anyway and would be very lacking in WP:RS. Timeshift (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep and this is WP:BLP exception material require exceptional sources. Gnangarra 06:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• There are definitely reliable sources to support the speculation see google search. In particular ABC News of 2 June 2008 - legal brief sent to ICC and supported by, among others, Lyn Allison of the Democrats; SMH of 26 April 2008 reporting on Former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad has called for Western leaders including Australia's former prime minister John Howard to be charged with war crimes over the war in Iraq. --Matilda ^talk 06:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a Sydney Morning Herald search also comes out with oodles of stuff. Apart from Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia (mentioned above), John Valder is another who called for Howard to be tried.--Lester 06:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources to support the speculation eh? Indeed :) Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It was already mentioned in Howard Government. That split has created a horrible mess. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is personal to Howard--Matilda ^talk 09:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this should definitely be included! At the moment, it is worded carefully enough to satisfy the cautionary conditions of a BLP. But I think it goes without saying we should continue to be very careful with the wording and references of this addition --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 10:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling for war crimes charges is one thing. Being called to answer charges another. If that were to happen, it would certainly be worthy of inclusion, but so far it's just speculation and slander by Howard's political enemies. including those here, judging by that last edit summary. No involvement by any official body. I'm removing this under WP:BLP. --Pete (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As rarely as you'll get me and Pete to agree, this is one of those times. Orderinchaos 11:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Same, per above. And Pete, WP:AGF. Timeshift (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Should not be included. Jmount (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that summary was purely designed to get people watching this article / recent additions to comment on the inclusion of that paragraph. More discussion is usually better. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 13:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I see the fast deletion code of conduct has returned to Howard related articles. There is considerable eminent legal opinion published by multiple reliable sources suggesting that Howard's strategy in Iraq violated international law. I have not seen a reasonable justification for it's deletion from the article. -0Lester 12:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BLP. There is nothing official. It's just allegations by Howard's political enemies. If charges eventuate, we should include it. --Pete (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when was it Howard's strategy and not Bush/the US? Timeshift (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift, It was Howard, not Bush, who chose to send Australian soldiers. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 13:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your point is? What does that have to do with the strategies used in Iraq? Howard just contributed Australian soldiers to the 'coalition of the willing'. You give Howard way too much credit to insinuate he assisted in the formulation of how to proceed. Timeshift (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift, I didn't give him any credit. I explained the brief filed against Howard, and I will do so further: Howard made the decision to send Australian troops to help the US invade Iraq. And, according to the brief, he should be tried for war crimes. It doesn't matter if he was involved in the scheme or not. Personally, I doubt either Howard or Bush contributed anything to "the strategies used in Iraq" --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 05:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a notable piece of information, documented by multiple reputable sources. Howard's choice to involve Australia in the Iraq war was a fairly large aspect of his prime-ministership, which is a large portion of his notable life. I think not including it would be biased in favour of Howard. It's not slander because he has indeed been accused of war crimes. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 13:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph should be removed under WP:BLP Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article., or as per Jimmy in WP:UNDUE If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Given that its a minority view unless charges are laid then it shouldnt be in the article Gnangarra 15:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Also I've only found one news story which it the one cited. Bidgee (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am quite sure that a single short entry is not a BLP or UNDUE violation. UNDUE weight is designed to counter POV pushing, but the removal of this notable sourced content per BLP looks exactly like a POV push in of itself. It cannot be argued that an official legal petition to an international court is an action of a tiny insignificant minority, especially when one of the minority is someone of the profile of Lyn Allison. It should be self evident it is a political move and most probably won't result in proceedings, but that is not relevent to the merits of inclusion of the information. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a political stunt aimed at labelling Howard a war criminal, even if nothing ever comes of it, which is the most likely outcome. It may be a Wikinews story, and if charges are ever laid it is certainly encyclopaedic, but as it stands, it's something that brings BLP into operation, and we shouldn't include it. Feel free to go through the wikiprocess, beginning with RFC, if you disagree, but it's not the sort of material we should include in a BLP without some fairly heavy-duty and high-level discussion. --Pete (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I might, because I don't believe this is a cast iron application of BLP/UNDUE at all, but instead a rather obvious POV removal. Your immediate reference to the words 'political stunt' in your justification above do not make me think otherwise. By definition, in all political issues, one side of a POV will always bethe one pulling 'stunts', wikipedia is required to be neutral and factual. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Carbonrodney (above) said that Howard joining the 'Coalition of the Willing' in the Iraq war was a "large aspect" of his prime-ministership. It could be argued that it is the largest event of his prime-ministership. Probably the biggest argument made by those opposing the war was that it would contravene international law (ie war crimes). This argument was made from the very beginning, by Mahartir from Malaysian, by Liberal John Valder, and countless other notable people. It has culminated recently in the submission to the International Criminal Court. Whether or not the court proceeds should not affect whether it is in the article or not, as it is pretty well impossible to get a case against a western head of state at the ICC. However, this notable criticism of Howard's Iraq policy should be in the article. We can see a precedent in the Donald Rumsfeld article, where similar criticism of his actions as war crimes were made.--Lester 21:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If we use CarbonRodney's reasoning above, no political (or commercial or artistic) figure could ever be subject to WP:BLP, because they are a public figure and opinions differ and what's scurrilous to one side is religious faith to the other. Looking at CarbonRodney's edit summary, it is clear how he views Howard. I reject his views. This is not a POV issue. This is a political stunt to label Howard a war criminal, and we need a very good reason to follow suit. News items on Howard's political enemies lodging spurious claims do not meet that criteria, though if the ICC decides to proceed, we should, as I have noted several times above, treat it as encyclopaedic.

It is clear from looking at the discussion above that opinion here is divided on this, and as I have noted previously, we should have a higher level of agreement, either in the form of consensus or some official wikiprocess outcome before including a contentious BLP matter. I ask those who support its inclusion to go through the appropriate wikiprocess rather than edit war over a BLP matter. --Pete (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Another furphy. I agree with Skyring that it is a stunt, rather than an event of note. If an international war crimes tribunal actually did try to charge him, that would be completely different and very noteworthy. However, I don’t agree that it’s a BLP issue – ie, we are simply reporting an established fact (ie, the protest). Hardly anything libellous in reporting (accurately) what others have openly done.

But, it still fails the notability test. A stunt, not an event of note. Possibly notable enough for the Howard Government article. --Merbabu (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing's completely silly. I always was a huge opponent of the war and Australia's involvement in it, and the mass rally against it in Feb 2003 is one of only two times I've ever been motivated to hit the streets about anything, but this is almost a classic case of WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE (I disagree that it's a BLP issue, but believe it's unencyclopaedic for other reasons.) On a purely content front, going after Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz makes a lot of sense. Going after Howard doesn't - firstly, ANZUS was invoked, which provides a near automatic defence, secondly, our commitment was small (Poland and Spain were two countries with bigger commitments, not to mention the UK), and thirdly, our troops weren't involved in any Abu Ghraib, Halabja or Mahmoudiyah type incidents. Look at the sorts of people they get war crimes charges up against - Karadžić, Milošević, Gotovina, Taylor, Seromba etc. Oh, and Mahathir swings allegations against anyone he can get away with. Orderinchaos 23:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hah – Mahatir. There’s a whitewashed article if there ever was one – I think we here can all agree on that!!! The man so quick to point out the “inherent” racism of “white people”. As if that’s not contradictory enough, he forgets the fact he’s enshrined racism in their constitution. Lol. --Merbabu (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• (deliberately unindented)I disagree that it fails the notability test, as the report states the leader of the Democrats endorsed the brief being sent to the ICC and this is supported by the ABC which will meet WP:RS. I also disagree it is part of the Howard Government article, this brief is against Howard the person after he has ceased to be PM. There is no breach of WP:SYN as only one source has been used and I believe the material has not inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research - the source substantiates 100% the text inserted into the article. OIC's arguments that Australia was involved in some way less than other countries is not relevant - this is about whether somebody is trying to get Howard charged as a war criminal. It is also original research to speculate as to whether the campaign for charging him is likely to be successful based on other precedents. Further it is original research to label the forwarding of the brief as a stunt - there is nothing in the source provided to substantiate that assertion which is merely the view of some wikipedia editors.--Matilda ^talk 00:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've said before that Howard deserves criticism for the too-close position with the U.S., which has involved us in what turned out to be a war we can't win, and resulted in some poorly-considered defence purchases. But accusing a biographical subject of being a war criminal without good reason is going too far, regardless of one's political views. This is an encyclopaedia, not a daily newspaper. I've raised a report at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Howard, and I suggest that the material be held aside until we have a more solid position on this, rather than edit-warring.--Pete (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, put it in the "Iraq War" section of Howard Government. The problem is not WP:BLP (it is perfectly sourced), but relevance. Tacked onto the 2008 section of Howard's biography, it has no context. Put it in with other reactions to the Iraq war, and there's no problem. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to the Howard Government article. You can add me to the list of admins that don't think BLP is implicated, but give the total absence of information about the Iraq War in the body of this artile, a short blurb in the government article is a more appropriate place for that material.--chaser - t 01:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• As I stated above, it is not the Government that is the subject of the brief. Furthermore it has happened after the time of the Government. Hence I believe it belongs appropriately in this article.--Matilda ^talk 01:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How about shortening to something like what I just did and then adding some context to place it here?--chaser - t 01:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy with that but for the time being I will give this topic a rest.--Matilda ^talk 01:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter and Chaser, the brief is against Howard personally, not the Howard Government. I think it belongs both there and here. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 02:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Skyring, on your most recent edit it is clear that you've misunderstood somewhere. We are not accusing Howard of anything, we are documenting an accusation made by reliable sources. The paragraph was appropriately worded to be sure not to imply he is guilty of anything, merely to point out that an accusation has been made (a very, very noteworthy accusation - not many people have official complaints filed claiming they are war criminals) --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 01:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The point about noteworthiness is who is actually making it. Not the nature of it. Anyone can say he is a war criminal - that doesn't make it notable. A trivial stunt. --Merbabu (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can file legal papers at the ICC alleging a senior diplomat is a war criminal? I think you have mixed the who's, what's and wherefore's of this disputed sentence with some tabloid celebrity titbit. Repeatedly justifying removal purely because it is a "stunt" is quite simply plain old fashioned POV editing, and it's getting old, fast. MickMacNee (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Former president of the Liberals, Democrat leader, ...other people notable enough to have wikipedia articles ... It is your original research that it is a trivial stunt --Matilda ^talk 02:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Original research warning one thing to question is that if this wasnt a political stunt then why no brief against Bush or members of his administration. The ICC can indite and has convicted people from countries who dont recognise it. Then in the piece about John Valder Greens Senator Kerry Nettle quoted as saying spent so far by the US on financing the war in Iraq could have halved world hunger. the senator doesnt say JH did anything wrong just that the money spent could have better spent elsewhere. That aside if this info is in the article then be clear the brief against Tony Blair wasnt the same as the one against Howard it was similar when talking in legal terms the difference in meaning of the two words is significant. Also the article doesnt say the US doesnt recognise the ICC it say its not a signatory to the ICC. Gnangarra 05:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning prefixing your OR. But, of course, Australia doesn't need to wait until the US's head of state has been accused of something before they make accusations against their own head of state. And, similarly, Wikipedia doesn't need to wait until accusations have been made against all involved heads of state before it stops excluding information from this occurrence. The only reason this information should not be included is if it is slanderous or not-notable:

• It's not slander: We have been careful not to imply guilt, only document what he has been officially accused of.
• It is certainly notable: Howard's response to the invasion of Iraq and his continued stance on the Iraq war throughout his term are a major aspect of his prime-ministership. Like I said above, not including such an important repercussion of his actions would be POV-pushing.

--Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 11:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a WP:BLP issue: Just to clarify one issue. The content, while disputed for other reasons, does not contravene WP:BLP. The content was well referenced. The facts are not in dispute (ie, that a group of eminent Australians submitted allegations to the International Criminal Court). Everyone here agrees that they made a submission to the ICC. OK, that much is beyond dispute. The disagreements are over whether or not the content is worthy of inclusion, which is different to a BLP issue. The disputed content is a small paragraph of the whole article. The disputed content appears to only state the facts. If someone thinks the facts are reproduced in a bias way, rewriting the paragraph is preferable to deletion of well cited facts. Rather than repeated instant deletion of the referenced paragraph, I would recommend following the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process instead.--Lester 22:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Lester, I'm prepared to cut you quite a bit of slack, because you are psychologically incapable of admitting error, and trying to force you into an admission is too akin to torture for my liking. But don't push it. Accusing a public figure of being a war criminal is a very serious matter. The people who submitted the allegation to the ICC are not Australians of the first or even second order of importance. Not a government body. Not a professional body. Just a bunch of Howard's critics and political enemies and a "World Renowned & Foremost Ambassador of Classical Guitar". Very clearly a minority viewpoint. The mainstream Australian and international media have utterly ignored their stunt, except for a very brief mention on the ABC website, which was not otherwise printed or broadcast or published. You are stretching credibility to the breaking point with your remarks above. If the story had been spread widely in the mainstream media, and given the front-page prominence such an accusation would normally achieve if it had any merit, then you would have a point and I wouldn't have bothered making this into a BLP issue. But when even the sensationalist tabloids don't bother to run the story, you've surely got to wonder about whether we, as an encyclopaedia, should give it any space at all. --Pete (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this issue/event/item warrants inclusion on the War criminals page? Eyedubya (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternative

Please take five minutes and read;

1. Movement to impeach George W. Bush since it's dealing with the US action surround the same event as John Howard, ask the question is the information on JH as notable.
2. Now look at George_W._Bush#Public views and perception.

To me a way forward could be adopting a similar type section in this article which will give an NPOV coverage of the various criticisms that have been levelled at JH without all the revert warring. The reason is that its exactly what the section purpose where all criticism can be given fair treatment, that doesnt mean it's a free for all as each criticisms would still be subject to notability and WP:UNDUE. Gnangarra 14:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

An impeachment movement is hardly equivalent to an untried accusation of war crimes, which is a very emotionally charged claim. As for a "Criticism" section, those tend to be troll magnets and are highly discouraged. I'm frankly amazed that this debate hasn't been immediately shut down as a simple case of POV pushing. If Howard gets hauled before the ICC for war crimes (don't hold your breath), then add it by all means! But until then, I dare say it will be a case of ruthlessly reverting this madness. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

ICC Action Group

I have not used the ICC website as a source but I note it claims support from the following people

• John Valder Liberal Party Former National President (& NSW State) President
• Lyn Allison, Leader of the Australian Democrats, Former Victorian Senator
• The Honorable Sandra Kanck, MLC Leader Australian Democrats (South Australia)
• Robert Richter, Queen’s Counsel, The Victorian Bar Melbourne
• Dr Sue Wareham , President, Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia); Member, Australian Management Committee, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
• John Williams (London), World Renowned & Foremost Ambassador of Classical Guitar
• Ron Tandberg Political Cartoonist
• Michael Leunig Cartoonist - www.iccaction.com/Leunig.jpg
• David Bradbury Documentary Filmmaker
• Criss Canning Australian Still Life Artist
• Cindy Sheehan (USA) Congressional Candidate & Peace Activist
• Stan Johnston, Past Chairman & Head of Criminology Department, Melbourne University & Former President, Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology
• Mike Salvaris Adjunct Professor Applied Human Rights and Community Wellbeing, School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning, RMIT University
• Dr. Tim Anderson Senior Lecturer Political Economy University of Sydney yes that Tim Anderson
• Gill H Boehringer Hon. Associate Macquarie University (former Head, School of Law)
• Dr. Robert Marr For Medical Association for Prevention of war

I don't think this group should be dismissed as a minority view. The viewpoint is that of a significant minority with prominent adherents. WP:UNDUE states that the prominence of the adherents has some bearing on the matter. Moreover I do not think there is an undue imbalance as a result of inserting this fact - the weighting is not inappropriate.

The website claims that as at 2008-07-14: Now that the ‘Brief Of Evidence’ has been acknowledged by the International Criminal Court, it is in being examined under the formal judicial process ...

In an article in The Telegraph (UK) reprinted by The AGE in March 2007 The court's chief prosecutor said at the weekend that he would be willing to launch an inquiry and could envisage a scenario in which the British Prime Minister and US President George Bush could one day face charges at The Hague. This would include Howard within its scope so it is not totally mere pie in the sky. --Matilda ^talk 01:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

One ex-liberal, two left wing politicians and an assortment of lawyers and artists. Woo. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If ICC takes action, then it's encyclopaedic. But from where I sit, it's a political stunt, aimed more at self-glorification and empty moralising than any real concern that Howard is a fair dinkum war criminal. --Pete (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an activist thing rather than a justice thing. Orderinchaos 16:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter, don't be so quick to dismiss politicians of parties you don't support as not notable. Regardless, this list proves that it is hardly a minority viewpoint. Multiple politicians, professors, political reporters and cartoonists and local and international lawyers believe he broke international law. It is definitely worth including. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's a minority viewpoint, otherwise they wouldn't have to rely on artists to make up the list. If it was "very very noteworthy" it would be all over the news. It's not.

Having said that, I'm happy for it to go under Howard Government as part of the reaction to the Iraq war (and in fact Valder's reaction has been there for yonks). But to put it in two articles just shows how badly the split has been done. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dunno if you saw my comment above, but the brief is against ex Prime Minister Howard, not the Howard Government. If it should only be mentioned in one article, it should be this one.

"It's not [in the news]" - Are you joking? Since when do SMH, The Age and The Telegraph (and not aforementioned other media sources) not count as news? Seriously, this discussion is getting ridiculous. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 04:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling, suggesting, or implying that Howard is a war criminal, when no such offical charges have been made, clearly violates WP:BLP. Just because it is in a newspaper, doesn't mean it should be in an encyclopedia. We aim for a standard higher than journalism here. --Surturz (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good thing we didn't do that then. Please read my comments above, or the debated addition to the article. We called him no such thing, we documented a brief being filed against him. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 09:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Many things are printed or aired in the news, even extensively, which do not and should not be on Wikipedia because they're in violation of our policies. This is why we have WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and the like. As I've said before on this talk page, we have enough issues here with real things, like the structure and content of the article, without the need to balloon imaginary ones into existence. Orderinchaos 16:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So they're imaginary court papers now. You're talking about 'real things' to deal with, after this POV push? MickMacNee (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's actually beginning to look that way, to be honest. I've hunted the ICC site high and low and can't find a morsel, and Google isn't being terribly helpful. Orderinchaos 15:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

See Lester's text above for why this isnt a BLP issue. This is not UNDUE because it is a tiny paragraph of the article, and it is not a view held in the minority. Think of all the anti-war activists - and they were only the people who cared enough to skip work. You can't dismiss the people on that list who officially support the brief as being a minority. --Carbon Rodney 14:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Now we're getting to the WP:OR core of this. "it is not a view held in the minority" - so who is it held by? If you're trying to suggest anyone who opposed the war holds this view, or anyone on the left/Labor side of politics holds this view, this is drawing a very, very long bow indeed. Some of the other arguments being used above in support of this remind me of the Great Corey Debate back in January. Orderinchaos 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So now it's an OR issue? When will we exhaust the list of reasons this paragraph should not be included? Has anyone said foreign language yet? It's obviously not OR: There was a brief filed to the ICC - and that's all that was said about it - oh and that there was one against Blair too. --Carbon Rodney 15:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I was arguing the reasons cited for keeping it were ranging into OR territory, and that the more arguments that are unveiled, the more obvious it becomes. Orderinchaos 16:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Then the claim that it is a minority opinion is also OR. It has been documented in multiple newspapers, I think such a serious allegation deserves its three sentences on the page of the person against whom the accusation was made --Carbon Rodney 16:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering, please. And while you're at it, fix your indenting and your signature. Orderinchaos 16:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't misquote me. I didn't say it wasn't in the news, I said it wasn't "all over the news", in fact I don't think there's been a thing since it was covered briefly on June 2. As for which article it goes in, (a) it is a response to the government's role in the Iraq war; (b) clearly (IMHO) a political stunt so belongs in the political fallout to the government's actions. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(a) Well then it should be included in both articles. It is a brief against him personally, how could it not be in his personal article? (b) when you say political stunt you mean the action is expected to fail but it is more to advance some other political motive right? - it is possible this is true but (a) why would it be? he isn't the prime minister, or even a mp anymore. (b) even if it is, the whole thing is an official matter and a very serious action - it should still be included. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 09:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Interest to note that when the same issue was raised on the Tony Blair article it was ignored. Gnangarra 14:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected the article for a short time (2 days) due to the recent revert-warring. One piece of advice for all editors - try to avoid arguing with each other in edit summaries as this just encourages the next fellow to revert in order to debate your point. CIreland (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Only the serious defenders of the wiki have been using edit summaries of the form "no", "remove this rubbish" and lolrevert (from someone who clearly wasn't even reading the previous talk page or BLP notice board discussions making it quite clear removing this information has no grounds in BLP) Anyway, wrong version protected now, we can all sleep soundly that we have done no harm POV'd this article. The people now with some spare time might want to go and check out George Galloway and Tony Blair, there's tons of vioalting info over there, and nothing even rising to the level of filing an international court brief. You can't make this stuff up. 'Stunts' indeed, are they going on out there or in here? MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

How is removing the documentation of a choreographed stunt that has not received any significant mainstream attention supported by far-left activists and a few ex-politicians going to damage the encyclopaedia? I don't get that one. Like I said, some of the inclusionists in here remind me of some of the people we had to deal with during a debate involving a boy who chucked a party during a slow news week and inadvertently attracted brief worldwide publicity which faded the moment he tried to take advantage of it. Orderinchaos 14:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"choreographed stunt" and "significant mainstream attention" ? mate, you need to tone down the POV. You aren't doing anything but adding flames to the flame war. --Carbon Rodney 16:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you were actually willing to help with content on this article - something I've been trying to get volunteers for for months - rather than rock up to edit war and pile wood on an already burning fire, I'd be a lot more inclined to take you seriously. We get this far too often on this talk page, either from the left (as in this case) or the right (the Obama case) every so often. Orderinchaos 16:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made non-reverting edits so you have no right to claim I'm not helping with the article. I think it should be included, and I haven't seen any reasonable argument so far except perhaps notability. And I believe it is notable enough. It would be helpful if people discussed the inclusion of the paragraph in the article instead of putting down the motives or notability of the people who were involved or, in your case, assume it is another case of temporary hype. --

Carbon Rodney

08:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look here [2] you'll see I'm perfectly aware of BLP1E and know when to apply it, just like I know when reverting is being done hand in hand with assertions that somehow wikipedia is the one directly accusing Howard of being a war criminal. That is the logic I'm not following here. Reverting, when your justification contains references to 'stunts' and 'tabloid' and 'left wing activist' is what completely weakens your position of trying to appear to be writing this article from an NPOV. If you actually sit down and think for a momnet, you might realise just how empty the pedia will be if filing of court papers at the ICC doesn't pass the bar of notability. MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I should note I am left wing myself, and the people I find myself agreeing with on this occasion I've opposed on several occasions in the past, as both they and neutral observers will attest. However, what is correct for Wikipedia to do requires a level of academic detachment from one's own views. Also, I might note that filing of such papers goes on all the time, on all sorts of improbable subjects (this is the third I know of involving Australia and the former Liberal government - probably the best known one was an Aboriginal group trying to take the Australian government there for genocide.). Also from [3]: The ICC is a court of last resort. It will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system [...] In addition, the ICC only tries those accused of the gravest crimes. i.e. As the action has never been tried in an Australian court, the action is guaranteed to fail. On [4]: Proceedings before the ICC may be initiated by a State Party, the Prosecutor or the United Nations Security Council. The list of people above, interesting as they may be, are not a state party, prosecutor or the United Nations Security Council. I would argue that a case presented by an unqualified party or parties with an absolute certainty of being rejected under the rules under which the venue in which the case is being presented is constituted is the definition of a stunt. Orderinchaos 15:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Check out the "violations" on those other pages? Just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't mean we should allow violations on this page. Your claim of notability is belied by the non-existence of any significant media coverage (200 word stories on abc.net.au notwithstanding). If this were considered a genuine accusation by a "majority viewpoint", then it would be HUGE news, and covered in saturation. I hadn't even heard about it until this wikifight.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's it settled then, you hadn't heard of it, that's me convinced then. Just go back to lolreverting somewhere else if that is your level of critical analysis. MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep your head on straight, mate.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I recall an AFD where an article on a non-notable student politician had a "claim of notability" in that she had been nominated for the Australian of the Year award. Very impressive, until someone pointed out that anyone can nominate anyone else for the AOY. This dispute is much the same. It's not the filing of papers that is notable, its the taking of action by the ICC. Until that happens, this is a case of WP:NOT--Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't have picked a more irrelevant comparison. Realy. MickMacNee (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can file a petition to the ICC. It's perfectly analagous.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can nominate someone for AoY, but that process isn't in the remotest way similar to a legal brief detailing why someone should be tried for war crimes. If the ICC brought Howard before court, no one would have a leg to stand on on whether it should be included. BUT, the fact that a large number of people (some quite prominent, who have political agendas but also public face to lose if they muck about) believe he should be tried as a war criminal. That's a pretty serious allegation.

And even if you disagree whether these people are pulling a 'stunt', or whether this thing will all blow over... Wikipedia has some pretty straightforward guidelines about notability. Whether it should be notable or not is irrelevant - it has been documented by newspapers, in Australia and internationally. It is absolutely notable. --Carbon Rodney 16:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing - Wikipedia does have very clear guidelines about notability. The fact this fails every one of them is pretty much why a number of us are arguing the text should not be there. The very same arguments get raised every time someone wants to keep something with only a tenuous link to the topic. I kind of wish that the actual article development side of things attracted as much attention as this trivial dispute seems to have - I actually would appreciate help in getting this article moving and only two of us (both of us busy both offline and in other areas) have actually indicated a willingness to put in the work to do so. Orderinchaos 16:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So not only does the start of the legal process for convicting someone of war crimes fail EVERY SINGLE CRITERION for not-notable, but John Howard's alleged war crimes have only a tenuous link to the topic of John Howard. Please. --Carbon Rodney 16:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As you have chosen to ignore my argument (look for the ICC links) above on this very topic, and your unwillingness to put aside your strong POV for the good of the encyclopaedia and improving the article, I am ceasing to assume good faith with you - I believe you are simply here to troll. Further persistence on this matter will result in a report to appropriately uninvolved administrators. Orderinchaos 16:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"The above user appears to be unaware that WP:AGF is policy." No. My personal opinion is Howard is not guilty of committing any war crime. But the only strong POV I have here is a very notable and important piece of information is trying to be removed by people who think it is defamatory. You can try to threaten away everyone whos opinion differs from yours but its not going to work. And yes, I did ignore your OR above. --

Carbon Rodney

08:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Came straight off the alleged source body's website - most definitely *not* OR. Suppositions about "majorities" and "official" proceedings (not documented anywhere official - and no, I don't count activist websites) without any factual basis whatsoever is OR. And most definitely not "notable and important", as my research below confirms. Orderinchaos 11:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Key word: Alleged. I could accuse you of inappropriate relations with a goat, but that doesn't make it true, notable, or likely to impress a judge, and you'd probably sue me for slander. If Howard gets called to stand trial by the ICC, then I will change my stance on this issue. But not before.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

How far do you think you would get filing an official document stating I had relations with a goat? The answer is 'not far' because it is not notable, true or likely to impress a judge. This brief is being processed by the ICC, he doesn't need to be a convicted war criminal to state he has been officially accused of war crimes.

Carbon Rodney

07:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What the media really said

This really proves what a furphy this all is.

Media release by Doctors Reform Society, 2 June 2008 (strangely not yet on their site, which only goes to May):

"The Medical Association for the Prevention of War(NSW) today welcomed the end of Australia's combat role in the illegal War in Iraq. They also called for an investigation into the possibility of referring the former PM John Howard to the International Criminal Court for his alleged actions in sending Australian troops to the illegal War in Iraq.

"Mr Howard committed Australian troops to the illegal Non-UN approved war in Iraq on the basis of misleading information about WMD ." Said Dr Robert Marr; spokesman for MAPW (NSW)

"As a result of the illegal War in Iraq over 650,000 Iraqi citizens have died unnecessarily." Said Dr Marr.

"We believe it is important that Australians not blame returning Australian soldiers for their involvement in the war but hold politicians like Mr Howard fully accountable for their decision to send Australian troops to the illegal war in Iraq." Said Dr Marr.

"We understand a legal brief has been prepared by ICCACTION Victoria to forward to the International Criminal Court . Said Dr Marr.

• Contact: Dr Robert Marr (mobile number removed)
• Glen Floyd(Director ICCACTION) (mobile number removed)"

Events followed on in this order:

• AAP reworks the press release a bit with a news story about the withdrawal of troops, and then republishes the DRS press release almost verbatim (2 June, 280 words)
• ABC publishes a different story quoting Glen Floyd and Lyn Allison (232 words) (2 June)
• BBC Monitoring Asia-Pacific registers the story, but does not publish it on its own news service. (2 June)
• AFP picks up the ABC story almost verbatim. (2 June)
• Record of ABC 774 and ABC Radio National airing it that evening.
• SBS airs an article talking about the withdrawal, with one single line quoting Marr from MAPW completely violating Godwin's Law.
• The Age (p.6, 3 June, 157 words) publishes a distillation of the DRS press release.
• The Statesman of India (p.39, 4 June, 69 words) publishes a one line summary of the ABC article.

There has been nothing since. Contrary to claims made above, the SMH, the Australian and the Telegraph (UK) did not report on it. It's been bigger on blogosphere. The ICC contains no information about it. There is no evidence it has been submitted. Even if it did, the ICC's own guidelines preclude the case from being heard as a court of first instance, and none of the parties presenting appear to qualify as presenting parties. We are looking at a case of excitable media republishing press releases from activist organisations. That alone should be reasons not to document it here. Orderinchaos 17:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. Frankly that's a lot more coverage than I thought it had. The press release would have gone to most of the mainstream outlets, and it looks like actual journalistic involvement was limited to summarising it for a brief mention. If the media thought the thing had any merit at all, they would have put it on the front page and assigned a team of their best journalists to cover the story. We'd have the people who filed the brief leading the evening news, featured on the talk shows, Sixty Minutes would have a segment... The fact that none of this happened, not even a single journalist assigned to write a story, is good enough reason for us to omit it from a biographical article. We didn't include Kevin Rudd's strip club, which was an actual really big media story, so why should we fill up our Wikipedia with self-serving crap? --Pete (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just correcting the above statement: Kevin Rudd's strip club escapade was later added to the article, because it was a notable event.--Lester 01:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be relaxed and comfortable about removing the strip club item from Kevin Rudd. It was only notable at the time because of the election campaign; it is no longer notable IMHO --Surturz (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Typical Surturz. Removal of the strip incident would be just more typical right-wing bashing of Rudd. Inclusion is a necessary pro-Rudd POV that needs to be maintained. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Grin. I don't think the strip club thing did him much harm anyway. Well, what about the earwax buffet? That was a huge story, well-sourced, global exposure, even some response from Rudd, and a lot of outrage coming out of Timeshiftland. We didn't include that. --Pete (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If OIC's analysis is correct (I haven't checked), then the whole thing is NN. The media mostly ignored it. So should we. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

One place where it be should be covered is Opposition to the Iraq War and it isnt. Gnangarra 13:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

NEWS SOURCES - Some further news links below:
The Age (Australia)
The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)
The West (Australia)
NineMSN (Australia)
Brisbane Times (Australia)
Herald Sun (Australia)
Radio Australia (Even their PNG international service ran it)
Antara News (Indonesia)
The Daily Star (Bangladesh)
The Statesman & Indopia News] (India)
Daily Times (Pakistan)
Financial services Dow Jones and Nasdaq
So, I note that every major news organisation in Australia ran the story in some form.--Lester 23:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I dunno. Looks like the same story is linked to various websites word for word. Hard to say whether the outlets ever gave it print space or airtime. Thanks for your research, but the point made by other editors stands - it was never a major news story, and mentioning it here in a BLP would give it undue weight. Should the ICC launch a prosecution, it will be a legitimate inclusion, simply because it will be all over the front pages and leading the news bulletins. Once the Olympics are done. --Pete (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

How do we judge what is or isn't a major story? Is it enough if the church gazette runs it? Or the local paper? Or the Green Left Weekly? At what point does it become major? Surely, when every single major media organisation in our country runs it, it's something the public wants to know. We are not saying that Howard is a war criminal. However, it is in the public interest to know that a group of eminent Australians accused Howard of being so, due to his involvement in the Iraq invasion, and that in the year 2008 those eminent Australians made an attempt to bring it before the ICC.--Lester 10:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the nature of the allegations, that the ex-head of government of a Western liberal democracy is a war criminal to be tried by the International Criminal Court, you would expect a lot more media interest than a bare mention based on a press release. We're not talking about some lance-corporal prison camp guard - and look at the media frenzy that sparked - we're talking major major major front-page special edition colour supplement. The fact that there was so little media attention is a good indicator of the merits of the case. You can spruik it up here all you want, but out in the real world it's a whisper, not a shout. --Pete (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We are making no allegations against Howard at all, let alone any extraordinary allegations. We are instead documenting the opposition to Howard's actions in Iraq, we are documenting the opinions of many luminaries in the legal hierarchy who considered Howard's actions in Iraq to constitute war crimes, and we are documenting a group of eminent Australians who in 2008 made an attempt to bring it to The Hague. I mean, you could have an article that is just a list of Howard's glorious achievements, but opposition and protest are an important part of the story, just as it was during the Vietnam war era.--Lester 11:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm, by the way, it did not appear in the print editions of any newspapers other than the ones I highlighted. Orderinchaos 07:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

War Crimes accusation - possible compromise

What would editors think of having the war crimes allegation included in the pages of those people that made it (Valder, Leunig etc), but not on this page? Would that be a reasonable compromise? --Surturz (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That'd be nice, so long as there was a follow-up describing the inevitable failure of their submission. May I suggest that we put this whole thing on hold until the ICC makes an announcement on the subject? --Pete (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Skyring: WP:CRYSTAL

Surturz: I greatly respect your eagerness to compromise. Personally, I am not happy with that one - I think that because it is against Howard it belongs here too. But I am also willing to compromise here - getting sick of this flame war. --

Carbon Rodney

08:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not crystal-balling. Look at OiC's comments above about the ICC. As JH hasn't been charged, let alone tried in Australia, and the ICC is a court of last resort, this action cannot possibly succeed. It's a stunt. --Pete (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not helping the compromise by arguing with me here. --

Carbon Rodney

09:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, primarily on Lyn Allison's page as she was the one who brought it forward (neither of the other two mentioned by media sources have articles or should) - and probably no more than a line there. Valder was merely an alleged signatory, I'm not entirely sure it belongs there. Orderinchaos 11:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree it should be in Lyn Allison's article as she appears to be the key figure in its occuring, the filing is a notable part of her bio, but I also agree with Carbonrodney ultimately it doesnt resolve the issue here. I support it as a compromise solution to put time between recent events and let the process at ICC develop either it'll become unquestionably notable or vanish into the ether. Gnangarra 14:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think in all my posts above I have made my stance pretty clear, I don't think deleting this piece of information is the right thing to do. But, if (and only if) I'm faced with a clear majority of Wikipedians who believe otherwise then I will submit. However, I am perfectly happy to hear options of re-wording, extra references, extra clauses... suggest away. --

Carbon Rodney

09:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

To me, the war crimes accusations were much more than the latest submission to the International Criminal Court, thought that is still a big part of it. War crimes accusations have been emerging ever since the Iraq war began in 2003 (and maybe before). The accusations were made by eminent people in the legal field, as well as some public figures. I think it was a big part of the argument made by those who opposed Australia's involvement in the Iraq War - that Australia's actions there would constitute war crimes. Don't forget, Howard was not just a follower of Bush into Iraq. Howard was busy encouraging the Bush administration to get involved. --Lester 10:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its better to have a section that gives a coverage of Howards action in the leadup 2003 plus the WMD stance and then close with this 2-3 para all up with {{see}} template to the article on the 2003 invasion. This puts all in context rather than a throw pov state in post politics which it isnt it a foot note on the events of 2003...Gnangarra 12:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to note how lightly the decision to go to war which culminates in the death of thousands of innocent people is taken. If a leader's decision to go to war is reported in a article, I dont see any problem in reporting allegations of war crimes by peace activists if it can be reliably sourced. Dock^Hi 03:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with you - but please don't reinsert the contentious paragraph until it has ben sorted on this talk page. --Matilda ^talk 04:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, one ABC source which is just giving bare details from a press release by the activists isnt. As per WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each this is a minority group view point and all commercial media outlets havent given it any coverage, its current method of inclusion in this article is giving it prominence out of proportion to its significance. Gnangarra 04:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I dont think it is an extraordinary claim. It is only natural to be accused of war crimes (if there are crimes in the war) for going to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations. Furthermore, do you contend that the report may be false because it was not reported in many sources? Dock^Hi 04:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Its insignificant given the type and volume of coverage, hence WP:UNDUE accusations of War crimes are an extraordinary claim and should have sourcing to match, the sourcing is nothing more than the groups media release. Gnangarra 12:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it is an extraordinary claim. I also diagree that WP:UNDUE plays any role in this current discussion, since the policy deals with providing equal weightage to contradictory or conflicting reports or opinions. Is there a conflicting report in any reliable source whichs claims that the war crime allegations were not raised? If so, I dont object including it to satisfy WP:UNDUE. Dock^Hi 17:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Undue is not about giving all views equal weight its about giving the various views weight in proportion, this is minority view without adequate sourcing and should be treated accordingly. One media report(release) compared to thousands of media reports on the event. Gnangarra 23:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

An extraordinary claim in this article would be "John Howard is a war criminal". That is absolutely not what the removed text says, and no amount of protestation on here can change that. The facts around the accusation are easily obtained and conveyed to the reader if written from a neutral point of view by neutral editors. MickMacNee (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

War crimes accusations incorrect.

This claim has been proven false: see my comment in the RfC section below

Carbon Rodney

17:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Those relying on a reliable source for seeking to include this material should do some more checking. The ABC article is factually incorrect in a way that means it cannot be used as a reliable source. I'll be posting an RfC later on today with more details, and I'd appreciate it if editors could just hold fire until then, given some of the impassioned comments I've noticed recently. --Pete (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to challenge the factuality of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation article, wouldn't it be better to list your reasons here on the discussion page first, so the involved editors can comment, before requesting a wider RfC? State your reasons here first, then if that doesn't work you may then wish to ask for an RfC.--Lester 00:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I should request comments before making a Request for Comments? I'll do the job properly, thank you. As for exactly why the ABC article is incorrect, ask Matilda. She knows the details. --Pete (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually, you should request discussion here first, among the regular editors, before requesting an RfC. Can I assume your challenge of the accuracy of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's information is the reason you reverted the article? But this has been going on for a week, now, and I can't find your reasons as to why the ABC is an unreliable source. I shouldn't have to ask Matilda why the ABC is wrong, as you are the one challenging the ABC's information, so it's up to you to state those reasons on this discussion page for all to see, before requesting an RfC on the matter.--Lester 06:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I don't know the details - not sure why Skyring suggests asking me. --Matilda ^talk 00:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Because you got an advance peek as I drafted the RfC above, which included the fact that the news article you used as a source stated that the submission had been made, when the group's own website gave a date of twelve days later. --Pete (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't read your draft RfC I merely satisfied myself you were drafting it. I was actually very shocked to find that User:Skyring/Sandbox existed with my name linked to it because you hadn't been editing it and I therefore assumed that you had been planning an attack on me for a long time. I discovered that was not the case. I disputed your use of sockpuppetry to progress the issue and left you to it - not least because I was keen that you get your accusations concerning my behaviour out there. I have briefly glanced at the material you have inserted above (here - not the drafts) - anybody else can read it if they wish to find the answer to the question - I cannot say I am any the wiser as to how the ABC is not a reliable source ... I really have to get out of here - I will not reply here or anywhere else. I am now on a wikibreak - leave me alone - stop attacking me - accusing me of stalking and all the rest of it - I am truly truly sick of it --Matilda ^talk 01:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this trivial thing got to this stage. If admins are withdrawing from the project, then it's a sign that we need to fix the way things get done here. --Pete (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course the ABC is a reliable source. But have a look at what the source actually says. The ABC source claims only that Lyn Allison et al have accused Howard, not that these accusations have been taken seriously. By anyone. It is a fringe theory. To claim otherwise is OR. This POV statement fails inclusion on so many grounds. We've got WP:OR, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:FRINGE, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N... on the other hand, the argument for inclusion seems to go along the lines of "I have a WP:RS that mentioned it once, therefore you can't touch me. Give us all a break.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Fringe? no, that would be something like the flat Earth lobby. Stating the Iraq invasion was an illegal war is far from a fringe theory.

OR? Where? Who has made any conclusions not supported by the source? In fact, who, bar the removers, are making any conclusion at all?

BLP? Consistently rejected as a BLP issue by everyone except the few wishing to remove it without cause

UNDUE? It's barely a sentence. This is a red-herring. Correctly worded in good faith would easily aswage UNDUE concerns, but this requires cooperation form the removers.

POV? How? Where? The only POV is the one stating that inclusion is not needed and is being pushed as a stunt/smear/conspiracy rather than a desire to reflect all opinions

CRYSTAL? The only crystal ballery being done is the prediction that nothing will come of the filing, therefore it is not notable. That is the very definition of crystal, defining the merit of content based on the future.

WP:NOTE? A prominent politician filing to an international court, I said elsewhere, if this isn't notable, then we have a problem with 99% of content per WP:N MickMacNee (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

How come your idea of notability is so far out of whack with that of the real world's news outlets? --Pete (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Because you can't use Google? My google-fu is strong

Carbon Rodney

07:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The ABC put a lot of things through their newswire that aren't verified to their usual standards. I catch errors there regularly, they're usually very responsive to email though when I contact them. If Lateline or 7:30 Report do a story on it, that's another matter - that would suggest it's been through the processes and checks. Orderinchaos 14:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What errors are being alleged here? MickMacNee (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

AusPol contentious edits (Rfc on war crimes debate and related issues)

Template:RFCpolicy This is really a request for comment on three things:

1. The addition by Matilda of a paragraph describing a submission to the ICC alleging that John Howard has committed war crimes.
2. Matilda's actions in restoring the material when it was repeatedly removed quoting WP:BLP concerns.
3. The war crimes that break out here and on other Australian political discussion pages over trivia.

Background

On 14 June 2008 a group of seminal thinkers, calling themselves the ICC Action Group, filed a brief with the ICC, alleging that John Howard, then Australian Prime Minister, had committed war crimes by bombing cities in Iraq in 2003.

The ICC operates to prosecute the perpetrators of extremely serious crimes. Its jurisdiction is limited, being intended as a court of last resort, unable to proceed where

(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;

(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

As there has been no criminal action in Australian courts involving John Howard charged with war crimes the ICC does not have jurisdiction.

Additionally, proceedings may only be initiated by a State Party, the Prosecutor or the United Nations Security Council. [5]. The ICC Action Group are none of the above.

Media coverage of this incident was minor, mostly limited to republishing the group's press release, or summarising it. Less than a thousand words over several media outlets, no record of any follow-up. The group's press release was dated 2 June 2008, and their submission to the ICC was made on 14 June 2008 (according to their colourful site), so there is no actual reliable source of the submission, merely that the submission was being prepared.

As the group's own website states, "WE AWAIT THE ICC PROSECUTOR’S ANALYS AND REPLY". Indeed.

Mention in Wikipedia

Early morning on 28 July 2008, an IP-anonymous editor added the following to Talk:John Howard:

I don't understand why there is no mention of the potential for John Howard to be charged as a War Criminal in view of his illegal invasion of Iraq, a soverign state[6]

I immediately deleted an obvious troll, with a comment about the poster's inability to understand. It seemed straightforward enough to me. No war crimes, hence no war crimes charges. User:Lester helpfully restored the trolling, saying:

I guess the reason that such speculation is not in the article is because John Howard was never charged with such an offence, and nobody seems to be likely to charge him. For any article, we can't speculate about court trials when the person hasn't yet been charged.[7]

User:Timeshift9 added:

I don't think we were meant to take that seriously... and even if we were, it's all WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OPINION anyway and would be very lacking in WP:RS.[8]

Although Lester doesn't mention the policy explicitly, speculation about court proceedings, when the person has not been charged, is a clear breach of our Biography of Living People policy, which states:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement.

User:Gnangarra, a Wikipedia administrator, noted:

Yep and this is WP:BLP exception material require exceptional sources.[9]

At this point, there is input from four different editors, including an admin, with a consensus that the material not be included for various good reasons, along with references to the appropriate wikipolicies. End of story. Decision made, no conflict, all to policy. For this article, with a long history of partisan debates, personal attacks and interminable wrangling over trivial points, this is indeed a happy outcome. All the better for the input from editors of diverse political views.

Then Matilda makes her first appearance on the topic, saying:

There are definitely reliable sources to support the speculation see google search. In particular ABC News of 2 June 2008 - legal brief sent to ICC and supported by, among others, Lyn Allison of the Democrats; SMH of 26 April 2008 reporting on Former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad has called for Western leaders including Australia's former prime minister John Howard to be charged with war crimes over the war in Iraq. (Edit summary: there are reliable sources and it isn't mere speculation)[10]

Following down that google search, there is not a single link that isn't mere speculation. John Howard hasn't been charged with war crimes. Wishing, hoping, speculating, guessing, petitioning are all a long way from legal process. The ABC article, dated 2 June 2008, begins by saying: A legal brief has been sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging former prime minister John Howard committed a war crime by sending troops to Iraq.[11] However, the group's own website states:

**** STOP PRESS JULY 11 2008 ****We wish to advise the 62 page ‘Brief of Evidence’ document to the ICC Chief Prosecutor, which we feel builds the prima facie case ‘alleging’ that John Winston Howard has committed war crimes; was sent to The Hague 14 June 2008.[12]

Clearly, at the time of the ABC article, no such brief had been submitted. However, I note that this assumes that the group's website is correct, and a glance at their website gives no great assurance of professional standards in their reporting. Interestingly, this extremely long page shows frequent references to Wikipedia, and cross-checking IP addresses might lead to some revelations. However, this is mere speculation.

Matilda then added a new paragraph to the John Howard biographical article:

In June 2008 a legal brief was sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging Howard committed a war crime while Prime Minister by sending troops to Iraq. The brief was prepared by an alliance of Australian peace activists, lawyers, academics and politicians, including the leader of the Democrats, Lyn Allison.(Cite reference)[13]

The cited source incorrectly stated that the brief had been sent, an event which did not occur until later. It is therefore unsatisfactory as a reliable source, especially for a paragraph in a biographical article alleging that John Howard is a war criminal. Granted, the text does not say this directly, but the implication is there, and given credence by its inclusion in Wikipedia.

A new editor appeared to support Matilda's addition. With an edit summary of "howard the war criminal", User:Carbonrodney said:

I think this should definitely be included! At the moment, it is worded carefully enough to satisfy the cautionary conditions of a BLP. But I think it goes without saying we should continue to be very careful with the wording and references of this addition [14]

Edit-warring over BLP material

I noticed Matilda's edit when I next checked into Wikipedia and removed it.[15], after saying on the webpage:

Calling for war crimes charges is one thing. Being called to answer charges another. If that were to happen, it would certainly be worthy of inclusion, but so far it's just speculation and slander by Howard's political enemies. including those here, judging by that last edit summary. No involvement by any official body. I'm removing this under WP:BLP.[16]

The edit summary I referred to was CarbonRodney's "howard the war criminal" in the previous edit on the talk page. That seemed to me extremely POV in a very negative sense, especially when the editor referred to our BLP policy in the same breath.

Looking at WP:BLP, we see in the lead:

Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

This is amplified further down:

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy. ... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.

I checked Matilda's quoted source, noting that it did not refer to any actual charges, instead referring to a submission from a private group which appeared to have been formed for this sole purpose. I could not find any other news articles on this matter. In fact, a Google News search returned zero results. Obviously any linking of Howard and war crimes, not just the action taken by the ICCAction group, was not deemed worthy of coverage by mainstream media. In my opinion, if there had been any substance to the possibility of laying charges against a recent head of government, then it would have been front page news throughout the world, and Australian media outlets would be devoting teams of journalists to cover the story.

Five more editors added their agreement with my view that the material should not be included.[17]. The comment by admin Gnangarra is worth quoting in full:

The paragraph should be removed under WP:BLP Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article., or as per Jimmy in WP:UNDUE If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Given that its a minority view unless charges are laid then it shouldnt be in the article.[18]

Returning to WP:BLP, the policy page talks about restoring content removed on cited BLP grounds:

In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material.

If the material is to be restored without significant change, then consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article. ... In any event if the matter becomes disputed it should not be added back without discussion and consensus-seeking.

User:Carbonrodney added back the disputed material, despite it having been labelled a BLP violation by multiple editors. His edit summary read, notable, does not violate WP:BLP as alleged in talk - clearly his own personal opinion, unsupported by the facts.

I raised a BLP Noticeboard issue, as per the advice mentioned above.[19]

Edit-warring continued:

• 17:59 Skyring remove: "WP:BLP violation removed[20]
• 20:26 Matilda reinsert: Undid revision 228435030 by Skyring - it is referenced; I disagree it is undue weight; notable others are involved; disagree BLP violation [21]
• 23:18 Skyring remove: Repeated BLP vio [22]
• 23:23 Matilda reinsert: Undid revision 228495116 by Skyring (talk) - disagree it is a BLP vio and so do others on the talk page[23]
• 00:20 Skyring remove: Leave out contentious BLP material. Report raised on WP:BLPN - let's follow the process, ok?[24]
• 03:23 Carbonrodney reinsert: Undid revision 228504504 by Skyring (talk) admin confirmed not BLP. Do not violate WP:3RR again.[25]
• 03:32 Skyring remove: WP:BLPN discussion ongoing. Please wait for due wikiprocess before including contentious material[26]
• 10:36 MickMacNee reinsert: Undid revision 228531666 by Skyring (talk) multiple admins have stated this is not a BLP issue, listen to them[27]

I was following BLP, which allows for poorly-sourced material to be removed immediately, WP:3RR not applicable, and that consensus should be obtained before reinsertion, with a posting on the BLP Noticeboard for assistance.

Matilda's actions

It is worth quoting Matilda's summary on the John Howard talk page in full:

I disagree that it fails the notability test, as the report states the leader of the Democrats endorsed the brief being sent to the ICC and this is supported by the ABC which will meet WP:RS. I also disagree it is part of the Howard Government article, this brief is against Howard the person after he has ceased to be PM. There is no breach of WP:SYN as only one source has been used and I believe the material has not inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research - the source substantiates 100% the text inserted into the article. OIC's arguments that Australia was involved in some way less than other countries is not relevant - this is about whether somebody is trying to get Howard charged as a war criminal. It is also original research to speculate as to whether the campaign for charging him is likely to be successful based on other precedents. Further it is original research to label the forwarding of the brief as a stunt - there is nothing in the source provided to substantiate that assertion which is merely the view of some wikipedia editors.[28]

The problem here is that although the source substantiates the included text, it is incorrect, as noted above. Yes, there is only one source, but that in itself is a clear sign that this is not notable. The mainstream media all but ignored this story. At this stage of the discussion, several editors, including admins, had noted that even if the material did not breach WP:BLP, it failed the notability test, and was clearly a stunt.[29]

Nevertheless, ignoring due wikiprocess that recommends discussion on WP:BLPN, BLP-contested material requires consensus before reinsertion, and WP:BLP removals are not subject to WP:3RR, not to mention significant opposition from other editors, including fellow admins, Matilda edit-warred on this material and then raised a 3RR report against me:

Skyring claims that the edits breach BLP. The content has been discussed on the article talk page and editors (other than myself) disagree with him. He has now escalated to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Howard. I do not believe that his assertion of breaches of BLP justifies his breaking of the 3RR when this is a much watched article with other people in the debate. I do not believe thus that the exceptions to the rule apply.[30]

This is a misrepresentation of the situation, intended to mislead other administrators into taking action against me. The case should have been discussed on the BLP Noticeboard, but Matilda's comments there show that he thinks this inappropriate:

This is being discussed quite adequately on the article talk page with reference to policies including BLP - I see no reason to have multiple discussions in multiple places.[31]

Matilda is happy to initiate multiple discussions on the 3RR noticeboard, as well as various user talk pages, but apparently not on the page that wikipolicy recommends! Comments on the 3RR page oppose Matilda's views:

I will give you my opinion. I'd be disinclined to block under these circumstances because I think Pete really did believe BLP to be implicated and was acting in good faith. Beyond that, I've recently shortened the bit in question and added it to the Howard Government article. Is that an OK compromise? If not, can we discuss it on the talk page civilly instead of reverting back and forth? If the edit-war continues, one either article, then perhaps a block or page protection is necessary.[32]

BLP overrides 3RR. However there is a clique of editors who are ignoring the basic tenets of BLP to push through their POV (which is over a rather trivial point) on the article without consensus. These particular editors (and admin) need to review their own actions prior to handing out warnings and probably should be sanctioned over it.[33]

An admin, User:EdJohnston, favoured Matilda's version of events, saying: This disputed passage is the report of a brief that has actually been filed with a court, as was very reliably reported in a mainstream source, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.[34]

As shown above, this was not the case. The sole news report was incorrect. EdJohnston offered me a chance to self-revert, which I found deeply offensive, and then blocked me for twelve hours. This pretty much coincided with my regular twelve hour night shift, so I didn't bother requesting a review of the block. Matilda had repeatedly noted that other editors had not removed the contentious material, and that this indicated a lack of support for my view. I couldn't help but notice that with me out of the picture, edit-warring broke out again, to the extent that the article had to be protected.[35]

Matilda's actions violate established wikipolicy in several respects. Perhaps the worst wikicrime is edit-warring over BLP-contentious material and then misrepresenting the situation to other admins for the purpose of blocking me from editing.

Bumfighting

I have summarised the conflict and I refer other editors to the lengthy discussions at

• Talk:John Howard
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Howard
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Skyring reported by User:Matilda (Result: 12 hours)

Personal attacks, incivility, edit-warring and ignorance or evasion of wikipolicy abound. The various discussions ramble on and on, and the one thing that they are missing is consensus. Yet consensus is required for Wikipedia to work.

Discussion on the John Howard article is an excellent example of the situation that obtains in other Australian politics articles. It is a mess. Admins understandably steer clear of wading into the cesspit, and many new editors must surely be scared away from participation. Activists from different sides of politics routinely press their POVs, attempting to turn encyclopaedic articles into political polemic. As can be seen in the war crimes discussion, misrepresentation is commonplace, with facts being distorted, enhanced or downplayed according to the immediate needs of the participants. I repeatedly pressed Matilda to acknowledge the significance of the dearth of media coverage in what she portrayed as a notable event, but she preferred to evade this point in favour of personal accusations.

This is not the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work. Honesty, transparency, co-operation and polite discourse should be the norm, especially for articles which are contentious.

Short of a full-on, hands-on oversighting of Australian political articles by senior admins, I propose a way of de-stressing discussion. Contentious edits should be discussed and consensus gained before insertion (or reinsertion, for the all too frequent edit-wars). In the words of WP:BLP, if the matter becomes disputed it should not be added back without discussion and consensus-seeking.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyring (talk • contribs) 3 August 2008

Responses

The above section is misleading and biased

• In your summary, item 2 states "Matilda's actions in restoring the material when it was repeatedly removed quoting WP:BLP concerns", you suggest it is Matilda acting out here. Many editors have restored it, including myself, and many editors removed it without BLP concerns, and stating BLP despite that being discussed on the talk page.

You are trying to represent Matilda's viewpoint as a clear minority, when it is held by many editors.

• In the second paragraph in Background:

"(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;"

As there has been no criminal action in Australian courts involving John Howard charged with war crimes the ICC does not have jurisdiction.

• This is wrong. John Howard is not a member of the military, so he can not face a court martial. Australian court can not charge someone with a war crime at this level because they do not have juristiction and thus does not satisfy item (a). Similarly, an Australian court cannot charge someone for entering Burma through Thailand without a valid passport; they simply cannot charge them with an offence - even if one was committed (and with that sentence I am not suggesting that Howard did or did not commit a war crime).
• You quote [36] multiple times, but fail to quote the section: "On 28 July 2008, the ICC advises the Brief ... [is] now under analysis". i.e. it has not been rejected as you said it certainly would be.
• Even if it was going to fail, as you say, Wikipedia does not predict future events (see the Olympics example)

This shows your personal bias, and selective editing not only while writing the above comment but throughout the entire discussion.

• You, and another, were very happy to say I was making POV statements because of the edit summary I gave for this edit: [37], but my statements were not POV only my edit summary suggested they might be. I then explained, onto deaf ears, here:

No, that summary was purely designed to get people watching this article / recent additions to comment on the inclusion of that paragraph. More discussion is usually better. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 13:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I now regret this, because this discussion has become so overly bloated, we now have a discussion of the discussion which requests more discussion.

"clearly [my] own personal opinion, unsupported by the facts." but multiple people contend on the talk page this was not a BLP vio. In fact you quote someone saying that yourself just below there in the edit war log. So how is that my personal opinion or against "the facts"?

• This comment is representative of numerous squirmy, underhanded attempts by you and others at belittling and misrepresenting the people who oppose your opinion (on whether the article should be included).
• It is also worth stating, that multiple people were involved against you in that edit war. And simply claiming BLP vio when it may not be (I think it was not a BLP vio, but there was an unresolved discussion in progress at that time) is not sufficient to grossly breach 3RR. This is one of many examples of you abusing and misquoting Wikipedia guidelines to push your own POV edits.

Bad Original Research and attacking the ABC

This was the final straw for me (in deciding whether to comment on this). I took the weekend off wiki so I didn't see your lengthly, biased and incorrect comments above earlier. In the brief, the first line says:

"Dear Mr. Moreno-Ocampo, pursuant to the initial report to you of 22 November 2007, and subsequent revisions of 30 May 2008 and 5 June 2008"

The brief has been revised. The site says the most recent revision has been accepted for analysis by the ICC and the article in the ABC was presumably talking about one of the other revisions since late last year.

• This really is just representative of what you and others have been doing this entire discussion. You take the information you want, ignoring the rest, and make a POV conclusion and then claim a bunch of Wikipedia guidelines to try and get your way.
• It is also an excellent example why Wikipedia doesn't accept original research.

You cannot simply cut and select the paragraphs you want from the above discussion, add in your own POV (and sometimes incorrect) statements and draw conclusions from them and then form an argument which you try to represent as neutral and unbiased. The fact that you assert this so strongly in your final paragraph, claiming that you have been doing the right thing when it is an outright lie truly shows how you have manipulated Wikipedia guidelines and process to push your own agenda.

Carbon Rodney

15:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Responses from others

What was the point of this farce? It seems to have been to attack an admin rather than address the content dispute, not that anybody expected otherwise. We already knew 'Paul' is deperate to do anything to exclude this information, despite repeated opinions it isn't even a BLP issue, but this Rfc that proposed to do something along these lines has done nothing of the sort, rather it seems just a long winded personal attack. He has done nothing to discredit the source as he implied he would do, and his statements to that effect should be judged in such a manner. MickMacNee (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I, too, am saddened by the form of the "RfC" above. I was expecting it would be a discussion about the reliability of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as a source. Instead it is full of personal criticism of fellow editors. In that atmosphere, I find it impossible to comment on the content issues that I was hoping to comment on. --Lester 21:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am choosing not to respond and to extend my wikibreak indefinitely. I am not prepared to tolerate any longer a poisonous environment where personal attacks are tolerated , edit warring in clear contravention of the 3RR rule is condoned, etc I don't think Skyring has mounted a useful argument or added anything to the debate but I will leave that for others to decide. --Matilda ^talk 22:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse I endorse Skyrings reasonings as laid out, the BLP issues are justified and his action were within the guidelines of BLP. The admin that blocked him for 24 hours should have applied that to all edit warring parties equally, even in blocking the admin was aware of a BLP discussion but didnt respond there until asked, even then said If I can venture my own opinion on the content, I agree that the war-crimes brief doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia is not a blog, and not all comments on a politician are important enough to include that statement on the BLP noticeboard shows thats it has BLP issues WP:UNDUE and then theres WP:NOT#BLOG
  Matilda as an admin should never have reverted Skyring twice she has experience(community trust) to realise that it was inflamming the situation. The correct course of action would have been to request the article be protected until the issue was resolved on the talk page, WP:RFPP not WP:3RR. Skyring is not the sole editor to disagree with the inclusion of the material and he has shown that the sources are questionable, they are from a minority group and are a minority opinion. The onus is on those wishing to include material to provide sources that compelling to assert inclusion, that hasnt happened to date. The personal attacks have been flowing thick and fast on this page so I propose a 1R restirction to all editors for 12 months.... Gnangarra 02:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional endorse I agree fully with Gnangarra's statements above (with the sole exception that I don't personally think it was BLP, but more UNDUE). I accept Skyring's facts and reasoning, and I think that there has been a lapse of judgement on Matilda's part in this instance. In terms of where to go from here, however, I think it is fanning drama to do anything about it at this juncture. The content is not being added. Matilda knows how her actions were seen by a reasonable number of her peers. Rubbing that in right now will not achieve anything. I think the matter should be closed as resolved with no further action required on the specifics. In the more general case, we all know about the endemic problems with the editing culture surrounding this article and I agree with Gnangarra's 1R proposal. Contentious things should be hammered out here, not in edit summaries on mainspace. Orderinchaos 11:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can see that both sides could be at fault but why attack the editors? It's not going to solve the content dispute. If the Brendan Nelson article can have media speculation about his leadership why can't we have the speculation about the war crimes in this article? Bidgee (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to RfC by Matilda

• Reply to RfC by Matilda - A policy or guideline RfC is for requesting comment on proposed policies and guidelines, proposed revisions to existing policies and guidelines, or article issues which concern a policy or guideline. It appears to me that the RfC does not fall into this space. However, it could hardly be said to be a and RfC on page content and the preconditions for an RfCU had not been met. It is my contention that existing policies and guidelines are adequate, however, I have some suggestions which may assist avoiding some of the deadlocks in the future.

Comment was sought on:

1. The addition by Matilda of a paragraph describing a submission to the ICC alleging that John Howard has committed war crimes.

2. Matilda's actions in restoring the material when it was repeatedly removed quoting WP:BLP concerns.

3. The war crimes that break out here and on other Australian political discussion pages over trivia.

1. In relation to 1 - addition is at the very least allowed under WP:Bold. I maintain it was not reckless. I also maintain it was not politically motivated.
2. Restoration of the material (twice) was within the scope of WP:3RR. I maintain I was not trying to "goad" Skyring into a 3RR breach. Moreover when I reported Skyring for breaching 3RR and independent administrator who frequently actions 3RR reports blocked Skyring and would of course have reviewed the reporting editor's actions. Reviewing the reporting (or nominating) editor's actions is commonplace at 3RRN and there are templates to record the blocking of both editors - refer to parameters of Template:AN3. In this case the blocking admin reviewed the discussion on this page and came to a conclusion that the defence offered by Skyring that he was removing a BLP violation was not valid [38]. The blocking admin's actions were criticised [39] and also clarification sought [40]. Clarification that the blocking admin did not think BLP concerns were material was provided
   1. on his talk page
   2. at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#John Howard inviting review of his admin action and commenting Whether it should be kept in the article or not is a content matter that should be addressed by normal dispute resolution. Repeating part of the argument here:
      After checking the discussion at Talk:John Howard I do not find that this material violates BLP. Some of Howard's opponents are choosing to characterize some of his known official actions as war crimes. The fact that his opponents hold this view may or may not be worthy of inclusion, but that is a matter for a Talk page consensus or an RFC. If this were considered BLP, any material critical of a politician might be excluded on supposed BLP grounds.
      My admin action is open to review by others, since obviously the proper definition of WP:BLP is a matter of general consensus.
   3. He later commented on the content again at BLPN that in his view the material did not belong there but he did not in any way go so far as to say it was BLP.
3. In response to what to do about the war crimes that break out here and on other Australian political discussion pages over trivia I have several suggestions.
   1. Firstly a strict adherence to Wikipedia:Civility. Moreover, watching editors and admins should promptly and emphatically notify offending editors of breaches of civility - templating the regulars if necessary. I read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars as a suggestion to stay away from the templates but that doesn't mean the warning should not be given - if you see bad behaviour - raise it with the offender, perhaps using your own phrasing and providing the diff for clarity. Those notifications should occur on the talk pages of the editors not on the article talk page.
   2. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines are quite clear - The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration. Adherence to the points made at How to use article talk pages does not require innovation or evolution - just back to basics.
   3. Conduct issues should be discussed of the talk page with the involved editors. While Barneca suggested below at #A modest proposal the idea of reformatting such comments, the proposal has unfortunately been exposed as unworkable as it makes the comments illegible to some readers. I suggest any editor should be bold and refactor them off the article talk page on to the user talk pages where they belong.
   4. In a related note, comments about unspecified editors are unhelpful - they have occurred several times and breach civility as much as comments targeted at particular editors. To be clear as to what I am referring to an example is: A more obvious matter is that some useless editors need to be booted off
   5. Gnangarra suggested using WP:1RR - there seems no consensus to do so. I am happy to support the proposal and I think interactions using the proposal avoided a repeat of the edit war: see [41] and [42]. It of course has to be opt in and there are those by their recent editing behaviour have clearly chosen not to opt in - in which case 3RR is policy and applies.
   6. When it comes to keeping on topic and getting bogged down in trivia I suggest using sub-pages. We create a sub-page dedicated to the topic being discussed. For example there could have been a sub-page (or pages) devoted to the Obama comment and similarly to this one. Such pages would be named something like Talk:John Howard/ICC issue. The main talk page would clearly point to or refer people on to the subsidiary discussion elsewhere. Those who wished to hammer it out to the death could do so. Those who wished to focus on other issues to do with the article's development could continue to do so on the article talk page which would not be paralysed by the trivial discussion.
      Similarly new editors who arrived would neither be drawn into existing discussions unless they wanted to but would also find the page free enough to add new comment about the article. I can imagine if any editor came here right now they would leave rapidly and without leaving a comment; hardly the purpose of this page.
      When the discussion over the trivia was finally resolved, the page could be renamed to be the latest in the numbered archived pages.

Matilda ^talk 00:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

That all editors to this article are restricted to one revert rather than the customary 3 reverts WP:3RR in any 24 hour period until 1 August 2009.

• Support Gnangarra 02:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: The recent article reverts show that tag-teams form for the purposes of reverting. A better solution would be to determine exactly how the Wikipedia rules apply to reverts, as nobody seems to know. One group thinks that fast reverts shouldn't occur for referenced new content. The other group thinks that editors should ask permission on the talk page before adding new content. My own feeling is that new well referenced content should stay until there has been time for the communnity to come to a decision as to whether it stays or goes, which would probably take at least a week. So, new content should stay for at least a week, and then live or die by community decision.--Lester 03:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Not trying to be unhelpful, I understand the motive, but the underlying problem is that there are two groups that are quite steadfast in their view of whether the material should be included or excluded. Trying to change the rules from 3RR down to 1RR will not solve the underlying difference of opinion, and the article will continue flip-flopping whilst that difference of opinion exists. --Surturz (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support for reasons already given. Orderinchaos 11:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I fail to see what this will do since it doesn't address the current issue and is rather unhelpful for those who have been source and reliable content that could be removed by other editors that use their POV's which will mean that we will be back on the talk page. Bidgee (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. This isn't the answer. The steps in WP:dispute resolution need to be followed in good faith, rather than lock down a battle.
• Neutral I'm wondering how such a scheme would work in practice. How would it be enforced? How many articles would it cover? We'd have to make this into actual wikipolicy, otherwise wikilawyers and editors such as Lester who need a firm framework of rules will feel no obligation to participate. There's a lot to chew over. --Pete (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Let's not change policy for an article. Neither 'side' seem to have edited since the protection anyway. --Carbonrodney added by Carbonrodney 00:32, 5 August 2008 (AEST)
• A more obvious matter is that some useless editors need to be booted off. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • What would you call useless editors? Bidgee (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    • A member of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (above) has stated that "useless editors need to be booted off". If that is the case, those "obvious" editors who require "booting off" should be brought before the appropriate Wikipedia tribunal for that to happen. However, I don't see the reason why it was stated here on the article discussion page, as we don't know which editors are being referred to, we don't know what behaviour is being referred to, and it will likely dissuade people from partaking in this discussion.--Lester 00:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I too find Blnguyen's comment very disconcerting and breach of WP:NPA - Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. failing to specify which editors in fact makes it worse as Bidgee observes, who are we? or they? The matter should be taken up elsewhere as per Lester. I suggest starting with an RfC/U if the matter is a strongly held belief and those users have been previously advised of their inappropriate editing on wikipedia. --Matilda ^talk 01:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Blnguyen. Docku^Hi 09:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I got to be stupid enough not to understand that he was referring to me (if he was). Docku^Hi

Let's draft a paragraph everyone is happy with here...

In June 2008 a legal brief was sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging Howard committed a war crime while Prime Minister by sending troops to Iraq. A similar brief was also submitted by a UK based group against Tony Blair. The Australian brief was prepared by an alliance of peace activists, lawyers, academics and politicians, including the leader of the Australian Democrats, Lyn Allison.

same ref at the end of a section on the 2003 invasion of Iraq; Gnangarra 14:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC) In June 2008 a legal brief was sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging Howard committed a war crime while Prime Minister by sending troops to Iraq in 2003.

Talk of war crimes (Part 2)

above title added later to facilitate refactoring of below sections into a grouping as a continuation of the previous "Talk of war crimes" section MickMacNee (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How come...

Just a quickie for me. Could I ask those who contend that this war crimes material is notable to explain why we few Wikipedia editors have now spent more time and effort and words on this matter than the entirety of the world's media?

A telling point on exactly why I think Australian political articles need some attention. --Pete (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Willfull and obstructive enforcement of personal opinions on the wiki I would say. For someone who wants to see improvement, from what I see you have spent an extrordinarily long time protecting both this and one other Australian article, and seem to be worryingly familiar with the editors who are of the same opinion as you, no matter what the merits in policy of any situation. The fact you still seek to turn this into an issue of how you perceive the event has been covered in the media only serves to further this tiresome dispute. MickMacNee (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

MickMacNee I would like to remind you of the policy WP:AGF. Claiming that editors are making edits based on POV is not helpful. Your complaints about bias are unsubstantiated, since many of the editors opposed to inserting the war crimes material are quite left-wing and certainly not sympathetic to JH. --Surturz (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You are the person who reverts with edit summaries of "No" and "Revert this rubiish" [43], so excuse me if I don;t take any pointers from you about anything. MickMacNee (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

At least one inclusion supporter has now said a number of times that exclusion is POV and the arguments against inclusion are tiring. I've let it go now, but it can be equally said that inclusion is POV and that arguments for inclusion are also tiring. I think we are now equal on that count and we can drop such argument. Since Surturz comments are null and void in the eyes of some editors, let me just say that I share his views about the AGF and that both "left and right wing" editors are arguing against inclusion which nulifies POV concerns. --Merbabu (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - the majority of no identified political association within the group of people who regularly edit here has supported inclusion. Timeshift and I are left wing editors who have opposed from the beginning. I hate boxing people in or defining conflicts so starkly, but it's an observation that needed making. Orderinchaos 11:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I object to being labelled a "left wing editor". I am a centre-left in my beliefs not my edits. Timeshift (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no identified political association and, as far as I have read, no one else (except you) has declared their political stance either. Frankly your general political stance doesn't interest me, nor does it give you any greater right on whether we should include the paragraph in the article.

Carbon Rodney

12:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as when you go to a new school or college or workplace and discover that there is a particular dynamic of internal politics which exists within it which is incomprehensible to outsiders, and which a knowledge of is essential in order to be able to negotiate within it, so this article and its talk page have very much their own dynamic, essentially a victim of some rather unfortunate history involving some rather nasty warring and pushing by people who aren't here any more (and haven't been for a long time), who drove a lot of moderates away leaving the environment here somewhat toxic and polarised. The stances and background of most members are, to one extent or another, shared knowledge here, as are a series of interrelations both positive and negative, such that in almost every debate, if X supports, you know Y and Z will support and A and B and C will oppose as a matter of course. If you sit here long enough you'll see that every 2 months, almost on the dot, some crazy out-of-nowhere fly (copra plantantions, Barack Obama and now war crimes!) lands on this thing and sets it off for several weeks on matters not even remotely related to improving the article, which give ground to these major battles. Some of us are really trying to fix that (and the fact this article is chronically deficient through this process of battle-and-neglect), although it's a hard slog and most of us have other areas of priority not only here but in real life. If you want to help us, fine. If you don't, please stop creating drama. Orderinchaos 16:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who brought up political affiliations, and now you accuse him of creating drama by replying to you? You cannot be serious if you are claiming the comments of Paul in the OP of this section, and below about "pretty much having consensus", are aimed at fixing the tendency of discussion of these issues to become polarised and for it being achieved through stalemate as people are pushed off articles through sheer frustration, intimidation and bad faith. MickMacNee (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Political affiliations are an inevitable fact of life in this particular editing space. I'm open enough to acknowledge that. They lie just under every argument that has occurred here since last year. The situations that have unfolded over that time, one of which nearly went to ArbCom except that the Christmas holidays intervened to make it all go away, have largely brought out the held views of pretty much all of the main contenders. I'll clarify - most of what goes on here is utterly unhelpful. You can read the archives and see it for yourself. If you're trying to suggest that by focussing on the behaviour and actions of one person I am condoning those of another, that'd be incorrect. Merbabu and Gnangarra are pretty much the only people that have had no role in escalating this and have been helpful and neutral. But from my perspective, people with little prior experience of Wikipedia or of disputes on here arriving in here to fight on behalf of a clearly contestable notion which has not gained any kind of consensus, having not previously been involved in the article, there is serious questions as to whether that is inflaming drama or helping to resolve the broader issues with this article. I don't label it SPA because it's not, but it does raise questions. Orderinchaos 20:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that in response to people with little prior experience of Wikipedia or of disputes on here arriving in here to fight on behalf of a clearly contestable notion which has not gained any kind of consensus, having not previously been involved in the article, there is serious questions as to whether that is inflaming drama or helping to resolve the broader issues with this article. - Outside editors are in effect invited here by the lodgment of the RfC. To dismiss them as inexperienced is inappropriate. The focus of the RfC was not content related, or even policies related to content - it was in the main conduct related - specifically my conduct was called into question. I think it is unfortunate to focus on the people recently joining the debate as inflaming drama. As far as I can see they have steadfastly tried to focus on content issues as per WP:NPA. --Matilda ^talk 19:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just out of interest, have either the Australian or Iraqi governments publicly supported the War Crimes allegations? If they had, that would be good criteria supporting inclusion; that official organisations are backing the allegation. Also, have any Australian military officers been named? UIANAL, but if JH had given illegal orders, then aren't the officers that carried out those illegal orders also culpable? If specific officers were named then it would build the case that the allegations are serious. --Surturz (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - that's the principle that has been applied in the special courts for Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the former Yugoslavia. Orderinchaos 11:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This ins't a standard measure of merit in any article I know of. The act of filing papers at an official court is an official act. People are trying to imply all we are talking about is tabloid tittle tattle, we are not. MickMacNee (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that, firstly, there is no evidence that they have, and secondly, there is no evidence they have been accepted as a filed submission. Should be noted this is the third case "filed" at the ICC against members of the previous Howard government. Orderinchaos 16:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it never happened. Anyone sense the common theme here?. MickMacNee (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the ICCAction website and I don't think it is credible. I can find no evidence that the eminent persons named on that website actually support or are even aware of the website. The brief contains "references" to wikipedia and YouTube, which I would have thought would not appear in a serious legal brief. The brief appears to be authored by the website owner, who does not seem to be a lawyer. Is there any reliable source that proves Valder et al *actually* support this "filing"? Maybe I'm completely wrong here, but I would love for other editors to have a look and say what they think. --Surturz (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, I was thinking much the same thing about the "eminent people" listed, most of whom aren't eminent enough for Wikipedia. It's just a list, and their names don't appear on any of the supposed group's documents. I don't know what their criteria for inclusion on this very odd website is, but I'll bet that there's no registered association, no constitution, no membership dues. This "Senate Candidate Glenn Floyd", who runs the show, lives in California, according to a whois search. --Pete (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

From my searches he appeared to be a doctor in New South Wales (with one "n"). Orderinchaos 07:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the act of filing, not the list posted, which was done with clear attribution to the site and reference to not using it as an RS in the article. Presumably if none of this was true, there would be counter action/comment from Howard/the press about this website. I also note that Pete uses facts taken from this site to attempt to refute the RS ABC article elsewhere. So which way do we want it? Use the site to support arguments made here, or don't. It cannot be both. MickMacNee (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

I would like to remind all editors that "consensus" is not the same as a majority view. Consensus is better defined as 'a lack of active opposition'. Please familiarise yourself with WP:CONS and realise that it is better for WP if you find uncontentious material to add to the article, rather than try to force in something that several editors are implacably opposed to inserting. Finally, consensus is required to insert material into an article. Consensus is not required to remove material (since by definition, if someone thinks it should be removed, then the material in question does not have consensus for inclusion). ---Surturz (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus means nothing if it is not based in policy. Franky, a bunch of people sitting on an article and making POV statements and making long winded attack posts is not conducive to anything, least of all consensus. Anybody can label anything contentious if wording such as 'stunt' and 'smear' are tolerated as resembling a reasoned argument, it takes a bigger man to defend the other side and find a way of including contentious material in a neutral and objective manner, severely lacking here. MickMacNee (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that consensus building requires you to convince editors such as Timeshift9, Skyring and myself that the material warrants inclusion. Accusing us of POV (whether or not those allegations are true) is unlikely to convince us. However, for myself, if the charges are actually laid by the ICC, or if an official government agency (of any country) makes those allegations, then I would support inclusion. IMO a confederation of Howard-haters sending a brief to the ICC does not warrant inclusion, unless the ICC actually acts on that brief. BTW the use of the words "stunt" and "smear" (and my use of the word "rubbish") were not aimed at editors, rather at the ICC coalition. --Surturz (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I can only reiterate that there is not much point trying to use rational argument to convince people who base their interpretation of policy on the fact that because they think the allegation is being done by "Howard-haters" it allows them to act accordingly. This is editing from a POV, no matter how you cut it, and doesn't convince me your are acting objectively, and I doubt it does for others too. MickMacNee (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, that's pretty much consensus then. The war crimes stuff stays out unless the ICC agrees to charge John Howard, at which point it becomes a real-world story and we can include it legitimately. --Pete (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Did I say that? Your attitude displayed here is becoming increasingly unhelpfull in the collaberative spirit of wikipedia, perhaps we need more admin eyes on this talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't happen because you declare it. And the inclusion of any paragraph does not have to be run by every editor who casually watches a page.

Carbon Rodney

12:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You've said you've given up, Matilda has regrettably gone on wikileave, so I don't see a real lot of other views remaining. If the thing is fair dinkum, as you seem to think, then the ICC will pick it up, and we'll give it a run. You can't say fairer than that. --Pete (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did bully some of the editors into wikibreak. Did I say I gave up?

Carbon Rodney

12:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont see any problem in including a reliably sourced relevant information. It is not wikipedia's job to find out whether it originates from Howard haters or lovers, though it can be mentioned if necessary(for the sake of objectivity).Docku^Hi 13:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether the ICC "takes it up" is irrelevant, ad is not the standard of merit applied anywhere else. MickMacNee (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless, it is going to be used as a talking point for exclusion in this case. Docku^Hi 14:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing it is OK to include POV in a BLP so long as the POV is declared? Not sure where that fits into wikipolicy. As for notability or not (as seems to be the crux of this debate), I am firmly of the opinion that this is essentially no different from any other halfway-prominent political activist who randomly claims that Bush/Blair/Howard is a war criminal (which no-one seems to be arguing are notable or appropriate for BLP, despite a number of "reliable sources" [44], [45], [46]). Having a reliable source does not alone warrant inclusion - it needs notability as well. A brief sent to a court is not notable. A brief acted upon by a court would be. So it should stay out until such time as Howard may or may not be called to answer. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont want to give the impression that I dont care about BLP issues. But my point is that it is not a POV in my opinion. We are not talking about a sleazy report reported in a shady source about some alleged sex affair. It is about a war everyone in the world knows about and many were opposed to. (reporting opposition to a war which so many people opposed is not a POV). By including reliably sourced opposition within Australia, the readers are educated about the opposition within Australia as well. I, in fact, tend to think it is a positive addition to the article. In short, it is not POV, it is about inclusion of a reliably sourced information or not. As per WP:PRESERVE, it can be mentioned. Docku^Hi 15:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So how come it's left for a bunch of self-appointed private citizens to make a submission? Proceedings in the ICC can only be launched by a State, by the UN, or by the ICC's own prosecutor. It's difficult to extract the truth from the bunch's hyperbolic website, - "A HORRIFIC WAR CRIME," it tells us - but one interpretation mentioned above is that their submission has been repeatedly rejected. "HOWARD’S HANDS ARE COVERED IN BLOOD," the group's head tells us, but perhaps the ICC requires higher standards than lying and ranting and SHOUTING, and this unique group of concerned citizens just haven't grasped the reality that they represent a tiny minority fringe viewpoint. Vocal and visible, to be sure, but a tiny minority nonetheless. --Pete (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion. The legality or not of the Iraq Invasion is hardly a fringe topic, to suggest otherwise smacks of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. MickMacNee (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To Pete:We are discussing about the inclusion of war crimes allegations submitted by an organisation to ICC based on a reliable source. It is off-topic to discuss about the ICC procedures, ranting and shouting (in your view) of the organisation. By distracting the conversation, you are setting up a strawman argument which I dont want to waste time defending. Besides, even your distracted argument is false as the fact says that individuals or organizations may submit to the Prosecutor information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Finally, we are neither discussing about the legitimacy of the actions initiated against John Howard nor the chance of its success. We are merely debating about the inclusion of a reliably sourced information which shows opposition within Australia to one of the wars the country was engaged in. Why is there so much opposition against inclusion of the freedom of expression of people which was picked up and published by a reliable source. When the editors in that reliable source made up the decision based on its notability, what is the problem in including it in wikipedia? I would welcome pointed answers to my concerns here and my previous comment. Thanks. Docku^Hi 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing the importance of the Iraq War with the importance of Lyn Allison's ICC accusation. No one is disputing that opposition to the Iraq War be in the Howard Government article. No one is even disputing that Lyn Allison's ICC complaint be in the Howard Government article. That is the appropriate place, in discussion of reaction to his decision to go to war. But the Iraq War was part of the actions of the Howard Government. Is the ICC accusation an important part of Howard's post-PM career? I'd say no. "shows opposition in Australia" you say. No, the hundreds of thousands in street protests showed that. Not Allison's loony ICC accusation. Allison couldn't get Bob Brown or any of the Greens to sign it. She couldn't even get any of her colleagues in her own party to sign it except for one South Australian MP; she had to rely on a bunch of artists. The media briefly mentioned it on June 2, then everyone dropped it. Wikipedia has briefly mentionded in Howard Government. That should be all. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. Here, it's a ripple in an ocean. Take it over to the ICC Action Group teapot where it is a raging tempest. In this article, it's a flake of earwax, in the other, it's the very breath in their body. Most of these eminent people are so awesomely eminent that they don't even have Wikipedia articles. --Pete (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

war crime allegations and street protests arent the same. And I like the logic used by Pete to discredit the notability of ICC action group. Docku^Hi 02:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. See. Wikipedia is useful after all! --Pete (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I however would have to remind you that you violated Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines by editing my talk. Docku^Hi 03:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Having a Wikipedia article is not a criterion for eminence, popularity or notoriety
2. Approximately half of those people do actually have wp articles
   Carbon Rodney
   17:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Going to try to make argument clear as possible (Carbonrodney's summary)

Please add arguments as dot points with bold, then as sub-dot point write support or refute statement with clear and concise argument. Further argument is a sub-sub-dotpoint with rebuttal...

Reasons to not include the paragraph

Violated BLP because sources unreliable

• Not extensively covered in the news

• Refute: Covered in almost every national newspaper, and some international papers

• Rebuttal: Sources are not reliable

• Rebuttal: Multiple newspapers covered this, not just extremist papers.

Violates UNDUE because minority POV statement is given undue attention

• Paragraph does not document an opinion, it documents the filing of a legal brief

• Support: Written in neutral tone, with no suggestion that Howard is guilty of anything.

• Undue attention not given to paragraph

• Support: It is a small paragraph in a large article
• Refute: Supported by Democrat party leader and ex-Liberal

• Rebuttal: Their support is not means for exclusion
• Rebuttal: Not supported by other strongly anti-Iraq-war politicians, specifically any other Federal Democrats or the Australian Greens

• Refute: Supported by Artists

• Rebuttal: Their support is not means for exclusion

• Rebuttal: They have only been included because there are not enough politicians

• Rebuttal: They have probably been included because they are popular figures

Event is not NOTABLE

• Howard's dedication to the Iraq war was a major part of his career, and this is a follow up to that dedication

• Support: Even when polls suggested the war was unpopular Howard stuck to his stance of support for Bush
• Support: Howard received extensive praise and criticism for his response to Iraq war.

• An official accusation of war crimes against a prior head of state is notable

• Refute: Process was not followed correctly (Howard not tried locally) therefore it cannot succeed

• Rebuttal: Howard can not be subject to a Court Martial
• Rebuttal: Subject does not need to be tried locally
• Rebuttal: Cannot predict the future per WP:CRYSTAL

• Refute: Filing a brief to the ICC is not an official process

• Support: Anyone can do it

• Rebuttal: Doesn't matter: the process is still official

• Support: It is as official as it gets for requesting the ICC conduct war crime tribunal

• Refute: Filing a brief to the ICC does not satisfy notability

• Rebuttal: Formal allegation of war crimes is noteworthy
• Rebuttal: Reported in multiple news sources, evidently they deem it noteworthy

Paragraph is fine, but belongs in another article

• The brief requests Howard personally be brought before court, therefore it should be in his personal article

• Support: Howard did not put it to Government, which is unusual when going to war.

• Refute: Actually he did put it to government. It was passed in the house of reps (where the Coalition had the numbers) and of course was also supported by Cabinet and the party room. It did not pass the Senate, but (so it seems) he did not need the support of the Senate to go to war. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Not having passed the senate is not a criteria for exclusion??? Docku^Hi 12:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on above argumentation

I tried to get a few arguments from the viewpoint opposing mine, but I'm sure I've left stuff out - on both sides.

Carbon Rodney

07:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Notes re above

Not presented in format which anyone can dispute, and the use of "refute" and "rebuttal" do not correspond with any Wikipedia policy, nor are they attributed so it is impossible to know or determine what this user deigns to achieve by this convoluted and bureaucratic process when there is already an RfC on the very same subject which he has already engaged extensively. I suggest it be dismissed out of hand as drama created by a user intent on seeing through a particular outcome at the expense of clear consensus opinion in opposition. Orderinchaos 08:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is not a helpfull addition beyond an attempt at giving a personal summary of the debate so far (which is perfectly allowed on talk pages). I had difficulty unsderstanding it beyond that purpose. However, would please stop making statements such as "dismissed out of hand as drama", which, when taken with Pete's comments elsewhere, is starting to make this look like a concerted effort on the part of multiple editors to enforce consensus through insulting and attacking one side, rather than presenting good arguments, which doesn't tie in with your comments further above about trying to prevent that. MickMacNee (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If the above format suggests any particular outcome it is that the paragraph be removed (i.e. the opposite of my opinion). I have no doubt that the current arguments presented there are argued with bias toward my opinion - because I wrote them! Please rebut/refute any of the points, once we can see the structure of the full argument it should be clear whether we should keep it or discard it. This is not a wikipedia process, rather it is similar in structure to how argumentative essays are constructed. But thank you for responding instead of deleting it.

Carbon Rodney

08:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I commend Carbonrodney's effort to put out a clearer picture of the discussion happened so far. Docku^Hi 09:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's put the same points several times. We don't need to argue on and on and on.

• There's no consensus for inclusion.
• Matilda has made herself scarce, so there's probably little point pursuing her for starting and mismanaging this farce.
• The only productive area is working together to find a way of avoiding these counterproductive arguments over contentious trivia. We can probably talk about that elsewhere.

If anything new comes up, we can talk about it. --Pete (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not that scarce. I have absented myself on the basis of relentless personal attacks. Note that they are still continuing - feel free to continue to pursue me. WP:AGF anyone ? No obviously not. --Matilda ^talk 11:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that second point Pete made is a personal attack. This is in addition to editing my talk violating wikipedia guidelines. Docku^Hi 11:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To Pete:So, you dont care even if all the arguments for exclusion were refuted including the factually erroneous statement you presented? It is your way or highway???? Is that right??? Docku^Hi 10:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Refute: Covered in almost every national newspaper, and some international papers

. What national and international newspapers? Really this hasn't been widely covered nor can the sources be claimed to be reliable until such time the ICC releases something to say that it got th breif and will take action inwhich the ICC hasn't just a group who claims that they have handed a breif to the ICC which out anything to back it up. Bidgee (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, When ICC says it receives, we will add that additional information. Submission and acceptance are two separate events. Why talking about acceptance when we are talking about submission? Docku^Hi 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Understand it is a little hard to follow but look at the bottom of the sub section #What the media really said above for refs to other news sources which covered it. --Matilda ^talk 11:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Covered once then dropped. No follow-up stories, either on the news or in current affairs. I've checked the archives of the ABC radio programs AM, PM and The World Today - none of them bothered with it. AM even had Iraq War stories on June 2nd and 3rd, but still ignored it. IOW, very minor media coverage. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please point to a wikipedia policy which prevents inclusion of a source based on the point you just made. Docku^Hi 11:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:Notability come to mind. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(interjection) Wikipedia:Notability deals with article topics, it does not directly limit the content of articles. As for UNDUE, one line about being brought to the attention of an international court for making arguably the biggest decision in his career, is hardly giving undue weight. For the sake of continual repetition, we are not talking about inclusion of tabloid tittle tattle here. MickMacNee (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS comes into play. Based on which way you read the website of the action "group", either

1) the news stories say that the submission was made, when in fact it wasn't, so the source is incorrect, or

2) the submission was made, but rejected by the ICC.

So it's either a violation of wikipolicy, or a non-story. --Pete (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you pls point to a wikipolicy it violates. I would appreciate a point by point explanation of such violation not just mentioning the policy. Thanks. Docku^Hi 12:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean I could find the same lines you mentioned in these guidelines. I would be glad if you help me find those lines. Thank you. Docku^Hi 12:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that is exactly needs to be included that the submission was made, when we know it was rejected we will include that or make some other decision based on the consensus. Docku^Hi 12:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

next move

Vague off-topic distractions and citing of policy without sufficient explanation are in the way of reaching consensus. Though I personally think there is a factual consensus (based on wp policies) to include the text in the article, it is just going to be reverted because the editors are not ready to accept it. Therefore, I am doubtful that it is in any way going to be easy to bring out a consensus in this discussion. I am not sure how much BLP notice boards and RFC will help in resolving this issue (may be they also have been attempted before). I would suggest taking it to Mediation. However, enlisting the dispute for mediation requires exhaustion of all other modes of dispute resolution. Docku^Hi 12:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for formal mediation

header inserted by MickMacNee (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Support taking to (formal) mediation. The issue is in serious need of control and direction through the application of an impartial mediation, without obfuscation from personal attacks and personal opinions expressed as fact. There are also just some basic misapplications of policy here that need to be clarified, not least the application of BLP re. instant removal of unsourced/unsubstatiated smears, and the most recent being the belief that WP:NOTE limits the content of articles. MickMacNee (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, there is no consensus for inclusion, and continuing the arguments by restating the same points is unlikely to change anyone's mind. Mediation will fail, because I see no need to participate. --Pete (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You provided link to wikipedia policies but failed to mention how those policies are related to this discussion. Your inflexibility even to attempt disrupt resolution and your prejudgement of the outcome of such a procedure is not helpful. I dont know if there is a wikipedia policy which warrants the posting of comments of someone who is not interested in dispute resolution procedures. Let us also not forget there is one final step which is Arbitration. Docku^Hi 13:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Your personal opinion that consensus exists is related to your personal opinon that you would not need to participate, and your personal opinon that good and proper arguments have been made and are discernible from the long and rambling discussion above. I don't even think it can be said there is an agreement on the primary reason why the text should be removed, after a long discussion we even got back to the "Did this actually happen?" Question. Mediation does not require your presence, and would clearly be helpful, given its raison d'etre. Answering the "Did this actually happen?" question would be an obvious start. If you refused to particiapate, and then subsequently went against any outcome, then I think there is enough evidence here for a formal request for arbitration on your conduct in this topic area, likely supported by a number of people. (I am assuming there are no socks/bad hand accounts present here and that every account is legit). MickMacNee (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Note WP:RFM says The Mediation Committee considers requests to open new cases only where all parties to the dispute indicate willingness to take part in mediation; parties are given seven days from the time of the initial request to indicate their acceptance. If an editor refuses to participate in the RFM its not opened there has already been a few with this article none have ever commenced. Now given your threat to Skyring "If you refused to participate, ..." when clearly he has the right to refuse as does all other parties you just destroyed any point in commencing an RFM for clearly as I would also be a party I state that I will not participate in an RFM where a party has been threatened if they dont.... Gnangarra 16:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The key phrase was "and then subsequently went against any outcome". That is not a threat, that is a statement of being willing to respect any mediatied solution by acting against those who don't, with the perfectly legitimate step of arbitration to comment on an editor's actions. I actually understood the formal mediation comittee could proceed with some particiaption (obviously not with just one side present), whereas the med cabal was more voluntary and thus required full ageement. Basically, if you, Paul, timeshift and Order don't want to mediate, and I think so far it is reasonable to suggest 3-4 editors do, then where does that leave us? We can't all edit war until the heat death of the universe. I would have thought a mediation, if you are confident in your position re. the content dispute, would have been the best and most good faith, collaberative way to proceed, if you wanted to solidify your position. Anyway, my idea is to start a straw poll below, (I know I know), but read it first. MickMacNee (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, in my opinion, there is nothing to mediate. There's a saying about beating a dead horse, this appears to be a perfect illustration of it. Orderinchaos 16:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't read it as a threat, it sounded more like he was stating that if Skyring does not partake in the mediation then he should not reject the outcome of the mediation - which may stem from a slight misunderstanding of the process for starting mediation: that mediation is volunteered for individually. As Gnan said: all involved editors need to support resorting to mediation for it to occur for anyone.

Carbon Rodney

17:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Support as per the previous "next move" header. I guess MickMacNee made it clear. It is anyone's prerogative to participate in the mediation procedure. But, failing to do so might automatically prevent them involving in this topic related discussion in the future. Pls correct me if i am wrong.Docku^Hi 14:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep your wrong This is a Wiki that anyone can edit, declining to participate in mediation doesnt exclude the editor from discussing anything on the talk page. Gnangarra 04:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gnagarra for clearing it up. It is interetsting though how you failed to answer my questions regarding policy interpretations and user behaviour related to this talk page. Well, let me assume good faith that you didnt notice and I will leave it on your talk page. Thanks. Docku^Hi 10:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has stayed out of this debate, and someone who hates Howard (but doesn't let it get in the way of his editting), this is a entire waste of time. Until he is charged with war crimes, it should not be in this article. Who are these fly-bys anyway? People with an axe to grind I suspect... Timeshift (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think, when we two agree on something, that's about as close to consensus as this article gets! --Pete (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me thank Timeshift for assuming good faith by decribing me as someone holding an axe to grind. Well, I was a fly by and was impressed by the opposition to include a reliable sourced information and became a little involved afterwards.(you know how it is)

To Gnangarra:The outcome of the discussion here is going to be of less importance than knowing a few pointed answers to my questions. Some policy questions none of the editors who are taking your position were able to answer in a convincing way. As a person who has a focused interest on keeping the conversation around policies, I would like you to cite the wikipedia policies and explain how those policies, which you think are the reasons why this reliable source can not be included in the article. As an administrator, I would also like to know what your reactions are to personal attacks like this against fellow editors and talk page guideline violations like this to make a point. Docku^Hi 18:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You have to admit that it does look suspicious to regular editors when a group of people who have never edited the article before swing past and suddenly start pushing, hard, a particular obscure POV not based on reliable sources but on appeals to emotion. Orderinchaos 00:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• As per my comments above to the same point being made to Orderinchaos, it is not suspicious when a group of people who have never edited the article before swing past ... when they have effectively been invited to by the lodgment of an RfC plus the alert on the BLP noticeboard - that is why we have RfCs and noticeboard alerts. I find Orderinchaos's views and suggestions that people might not understand this article and associated disputes quite extraordinary - please review the policy Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. --Matilda ^talk 00:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to be vague and not define what your suspicions are? I hope we will be able to focus on content soon. Docku^Hi 01:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• As Skyring has previously refused to participate in mediation on the grounds that
  • With so many participants there's no chance of getting everyone involved, especially the minor players, and even if we did, this would probably be a nightmare to mediate diff of deleted comment 28 May 2008 as RfM was deleted
  • My disagreement is solid. I'm not going to be a party to something that would turn out to be extremely difficult to mediate diff of comment made to subsequently deleted RfM on 29 May
  • Which you do not have, with equally due respect. Quite apart from my own decision not to participate, there are any number of other parties listed, who appear to have abstained. Even if I were to change my decision here (which I will not), then mediation could still not proceed. That's the way the rules work.
    in response to the comment: May I point out, the Committee's ability to mediate the dispute is not the concern of the parties, with all due respect. Leave the mediation to us; all we need is party agreement. :) by user:AGK (a member of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee - ie a mediator)
    comment of 30 may to deleted RfM

Note there was one other person who declined mediation on that occasion (Surturz). Some of the discussion can be followed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Howard but the comments were moved there later hence the diffs are to deleted edits.

Skyring has made clear in his comments on the latest RfM in May 2008 and also in his comments above that he will not participate - he hasn't actually said he would refuse mediation but based on his comments to the last effort I would assume he would not. This mode of dispute resolution will clearly not work. I disagree that there is nothing to mediate but ... the process will not work with editors who will disagree to be parties. --Matilda ^talk 02:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would vote against an RfM on this issue. Not even Timeshift thinks it should be in the article. A legal brief written by a management consultant that uses YouTube as a reference has no place in an encyclopaedic article. I have yet to be convinced that the 'eminent people' mentioned in the ABC article actually support the brief, and I think it is a case of sloppy journalism that it got any airplay at all. War Crimes are things like genocide, rape as a weapon, torture etc. To suggest that Howard and the Australian army engaged in any activities remotely approaching that level of evil insults our intelligence. I'm surprised that you are supporting this, Matilda, have you looked at the ICCAction website, or read the brief? --Surturz (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Can you not use me as an example? I dont take sides when it comes to article editing. Timeshift (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you even considering whether including the allegation means that wikipedia itself is implying Australian soldiers committed rape? The allegation is clearly about the international legality of crossing the border. Why even mention this in this debate? MickMacNee (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You probably need to start looking at things from a global perspective. I would like to invoke a fact here which is that there are Serbians who think Slobodan Milosevic has commited no war crime. Do you agree with that? Please dont get me wrong, I am not implying Howard has commited war crimes. It is not about your or my interpretation of war crimes, it is about war crime allegations alleged by relatively notable people in a reliable source. Besides, Is there any reason why we should support your contention that ABC is an unreliable source. If you could prove that, we probably have reached a consensus.Docku^Hi 03:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not come down to what we think or believe, it comes down to what reliable sources say, taking account of undue weight provisions and the biography of living persons policy. Orderinchaos 02:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That is discouraging. Docku^Hi 02:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait until the ICC processes the brief

Can I just ask a question - why do we need to wait until Howard is brought before an international court to document multiple allegations of war crimes (The earliest article I can find (a 7:30 Report interview with Howard) is in 2001). If Howard was brought before a tribunal I would expect a reference to his war crimes in the introductory paragraph. But I certainly think allegations of violating international law deserve a sentence or two in his article.

Carbon Rodney

18:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No doubt (answer to your last sentence). Docku^Hi 18:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey to judge current consensus

In light of the assertions from Paul, Order and others that consensus exists, I propose a straw poll to actually test this. I know that Polling is not a substitute for discussion, but currently:

• We have had tons of discussion above (starting from "Talk of war crimes")
• We have no readable summary of the points made and their proponents
• Discussion has been dragged down the pyramid periodically
• The consensus may in fact just be an uneasy truce (repeated protections have occured) leaving the issue unresolved
• We have lurkers with opinions who have so far stayed away from the discussion

All of the above, combined with the statements that a mediation would be opposed, leaves a poll as the next sensible step of dispute resolution in my view. I believe it is worded in such a way so as to not leave any demonstrated result open to interpretion / dismissal, whatever the outcome. MickMacNee (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So, in response to the statement: "The added text mentioning the filing of legal papers to the ICC alleging Howard has commited war crimes does not belong in this article", please indicate you Agree, Disagree or otherwise want to Comment. For readability, please keep any lengthy discussion to a new section. MickMacNee (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree as of now. I could change my opinion if the questions I had asked are convincingly addressed. Docku^Hi 20:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree--Matilda ^talk 20:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree MickMacNee (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree Carbon Rodney
• Agree Jmount (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree I don't think the item belongs in the article (side note: next time frame the poll in the positive i.e. 'The text should be added') --Surturz (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree --Merbabu (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Not *another* self-confirmatory measure, but yeah. We already know who supports and who opposes, that can be ascertained by any of the discussions on the page. Orderinchaos 00:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree The material should not be included. A very poorly-framed and unnecessary survey - it's quite clear that there is no consensus for inclusion. --Pete (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment:Any effort to assess the consensus needs not be criticised regardless of its merit. It was a good faith effort and no wikipedia policy was breached by doing this . Docku^Hi 00:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No effort was needed - any one of us could have written the above self-contributed list of disagrees and agrees ourselves based on who has said what. In addition, multiple surveys and other such things is possibly an exercise in gaming the system as not every editor is going to see every survey. I only happened to look, otherwise I wouldn't even have seen it. Knowing who agrees and who disagrees (given the positions are fairly entrenched) is I would say unhelpful to consensus (which is not being assessed here, more the "strength" of the opposing "teams".) The engaging in wikilawyering and bad faith conduct by one side in this dispute, all but one of whom are not regular editors on this article, is the actual problem here. Orderinchaos 02:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again WP:OWN applies - I have very real concerns that anything else should be suggested. I have concerns that you are attempting to keep people off this page (see this edit at WP:AN despite the RfC and the BLP notice which invite editors on to comment. If you have accusations about wikilawyering and bad faith - please be explicit. The general they that is getting bandied about is getting very wearing. --Matilda ^talk 02:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please type in regular sized text? I have to use a magnifying class to read the above. I see no reason to negotiate with people who have already decided the end outcome and are merely trying to find ways to make it happen. Indulging in such is the definition of pointless. Orderinchaos 02:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How does it matter if I am a regular editor or not??? Could you cite one policy which prevents irregular editor discussing in an uninvolved article. I may have to apologise for having had to go through some things again which may have been a little repetitious. Docku^Hi 02:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It brings motives into question. Why all of a sudden are people who have never been here before coming here, not suggesting *any* improvements in the article (which is badly in need of improvements as we all accept), and spend 11 days trying to war in some out-of-left-field activist claim that nobody can verify on a single reliable source? If it wasn't so obviously activism, I would be a lot more sympathetic (a check of my contribs in many areas would show I've actively encouraged newcomers to edit in a range of areas where needs exist.) Orderinchaos 02:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, arent we trying to work out a compromise here??? Well, this is the last warning to you. If you suspect motive, prove it. Question of motive without specifics or proof will be brought to the AN. Docku^Hi 02:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not take your warning seriously. I do not need to "prove" anything - besides, motive cannot be proven, as it is entirely within the mind of the person who holds it. What I'd like to see you "prove" is one reliable source which, independently of the Doctors Reform Society and MPAW and ICC Action press releases, establishes any basis for this. I spend days in libraries finding reliable sources for the stuff I edit, not to mention the dozens of books I have borrowed out and which sit all over my floor - the onus is on you and those who support your cause to justify it. And I can tell you right now, it doesn't exist. Which is why I am opposing its inclusion - we do not need to open Wikipedia to any more ridicule than it already gets from the education community. Orderinchaos 02:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were going to reach a consensus edit which would satisfy all the persons involved in the discussion. Well, if you say you suspect my motive to discredit me, you got to prove. That is serious breach of WP:AGF. I thought you know it already. Docku^Hi 02:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe in your case that you are operating in good faith but completely outside of any interrogative academic process which could produce a consensus which would actually improve Wikipedia. Consensus is not always right, and policy, especially if clear as with UNDUE, SYN, OR, RS etc, trumps consensus. Orderinchaos 03:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith finally. Everyone has a different way of getting a procedure move forward. If there was any flaws in my way, my apologies to you. If my way of getting consensus offended someone, it was not personally intended. apologies again. But, I would love to get a consensus which does not violate any wikipedia policy and which everyone (means everyone) agrees with. If we dont, well, we dont. Atleast I will be happy that I tried. Docku^Hi 03:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this; the talk page seems to have fragmented, and nothing is in chronological order anymore. This section looks like as good a place as any.

Just in case you're looking for an outside opinion, analogous to an admin closing an AFD: For reasons unrelated to this content decision, I spent last night looking at this entire talk page (not the archives, thank God). After reading it all, I figured I might as well put that to some use. It is my opinion that there is no consensus to add the war crimes information to the article in any form, and that achieving such a consensus is not going to happen at this time, and further discussion is going to amount to going around and around in circles, with no benefit. Since no consensus for controversial information defaults to "don't include", I think it should not be included, and you should all move on.

I note that "consensus" does not mean unanimity; there is no obligation to discuss this until everyone agrees. Otherwise, AFD's would last several years. I cannot imagine any possible compromise wording that would gain a consensus for inclusion. I actually have no strong opinion on the inclusion itself; just an outside take on how your consensus building is going.

Non-binding, of course, but to be honest, there's a 95% chance that that's what formal mediation would end up telling you anyway. Accept this, or ignore it, I don't care; just thought you'd like a completely uninvolved opinion. --barneca (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are right. I also dont have so much time to waste here anymore. I actually thought we would somehow end up including the street protest by Australian people during the Iraq war as a compromise.(may be even Mahathir's comment) That may not be so controversial anyway. Docku^Hi 21:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you barneca. And Docku, that much actually does belong on the encyclopaedia somewhere, but it has nothing to do with this biographical article - something like "Protests against the Iraq war" with a paragraph per country, based on reliable sources. Sources would exist for all of the major ones - one doesn't often get half a million people onto Swanston Street terribly easily, and even here in relatively apathetic Perth there was quite a strong protest movement. However, that doesn't even have much to do with the Howard Government, let alone John Howard the man himself - it was a spontaneous reaction to an international situation which mirrored reactions all over the Eastern and Western worlds. Orderinchaos 22:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just took a quick look around : can't believe the article was exactly where I expected to find it (usually some sort of disambiguation or oddity applies!) Protests against the Iraq War does cover the protests, albeit in very very abbreviated form. Opposition to the Iraq War seems to cover the leaders who opposed it. Orderinchaos 22:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to Gnangarra and a suggestion for a compromise

Introduction:Thanks Gnangarra for your comments. Everyone interprets policies differently and this talk page is no exception to that. There are two policies widely debated here, which are WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. I am summarising opinions of the editors involved in this discussion based on the current talk page, I did not include opinions from BLP notice board and individual members talk pages. If I may have made mistakes (unintentional) in the summarisation, please feel free to remind me and I will correct. Now, while Gnangarra, Pete (Skyring), Suturz and Yeti Hunter think it is WP:BLP violation, MickMacNee, Merbabu, Orderinchaos, Peter Ballard, chaser, Lester, Matilda and Carbon Rodney dont. Gnagarra and Orderinchaos believe it violates WP:UNDUE MickMacNee, Matilda and Carbon Rodney dont.

Quote from WP:BLP

“ Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

”

My interpretation:The reason why Gnangarra thinks it violates BLP is because of the availability of only one reliable source. As far as I understand, reliable sources in plural do not mean that it needs more than one reliable source. Even if a strict requirement for multiple sources need to be strictly followed as asserted by Gnangarra, we have more than one instance when Howard was accused of war crimes as noted in the begining of this talk page, including the head of a state. Please remember the key word here is war crime allegations not crimes. Due to these reasons, I personally think that this does not violate BLP (as with many others).

Clarify you are taking my comments out of context, you ask specifically what policies was I quoting for opposing the text. It was the lack of multiple independent sources, ie one reliable source the ABC article, though still questionable as its lacking specific details. In this BLP is clear poorly source contentious material should be removed. Gnangarra 05:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote from WP:UNDUE

“ Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all ”

and

“ We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well ”

My interpretation: I guess the first quote deals with two different views. An example can be that one view being that the world is round and one being world is flat. In our current dispute, I am not sure what we are comparing. Are we comparing reports that he was alleged of war crimes and not alleged of war crimes (if such reports exists which contradict the ABC news reports) or are we comparing that he was alleged of war crimes and he never commited war crimes. It is hard to make the distinction here.

The second quote says that minority view should not be represented at all except in articles devoted to those views. The content in dispute may fail inclusion as per WP:UNDUE because the belief that he commited war crimes are held by a small number of people. But the important point here is that the disputed content does not claim that he commited war crimes, it simply claims that he was alleged of war crimes. So, the content will fail WP:UNDUE if it says he commited war crimes and may not necessarily fail if it says that he was alleged of that. Now, some might argue that since only a minority holds the view that he commited war crimes, it doesnt matter whether it says he commited war crimes or he was alleged of war crimes. Therefore, I am not able to decide whether it violates WP:UNDUE.

Compromise:Due to the complex interpretation of wikipedia policies and in an interest to present a compromised edit, I am proposing the following. I am not sure if it has been discussed here before, but I notice that the opposition to Iraq War is not included in Howard article (I hope I read it correct). But if the fact that the war received opposition within Australia can be proven by reliable sources like this one involving 150000 people, this one and this one. I am sure you all probably are aware of better citations than these. The protest against war can be combined with the allegations of war crimes in one simple sentence which in my opinion will not violate WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP. Please let me know your opinions. I would like to apologise if there was any factual error when I quoted people. It is unintentional. Please read it carefully, there is no hurry. Docku^Hi 20:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, UNDUE has the quote, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.". I interpret this as stating that you cannot create an article Allegations of John Howard as a war criminal which would be reflecting the viewpoints not belonging here (ignoring worldview/systemic bias concerns), but you can include a single line about the 'fringe view' in his article, as per the exception. MickMacNee (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarify another ommision from what I said, ...except in articles devoted to those views there is no article on the ICCaction group, probably because they lack the necessary sources to address notability. However there are articles on the 2003 invasion of Iraq this information should be in that where its in context, there is also a dedicated section in the article on war crimes against civilians along with an article called Criticism of the Iraq War and another Legality of the Iraq War all which should have some coverage of the accusation but dont. Gnangarra 05:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason other articles don't mention is because in part the content issues degenerated into personal attacks and conduct complaints which ensured that one of the editors who might have added it elsewhere (me) hasn't been adding any content for over a week. At present I find that argument unconvincing. Moreover the lack of mention in the Barack Obama article of Howard's comments did not mean that they were considered sufficiently unnotable to be inserted into this one. --Matilda ^talk 06:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Similar complaints are however covered in International Criminal Court#Other complaints, and in this ICC document which it references.[47] To summarise, by 2006 the ICC had received over 240 submissions on the Iraq war, and had already determined that the decision to go to war lies outside the scope of the ICC. So Allison's complaint is nothing new, which probably explains everyone's lack of interest in it. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Legality of decision to go to war, war crime allegations and war crimes are totally different things. I guess we need to make the distinction clear at some point. Since the inception of ICC in 2002, only four successfull instances of ICC involvement in war crimes are noted according to this article, International Criminal Court. They happened in Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic and Sudan. All are african countries. Is it because that war carimes are not commited elsewhere in the world? Sometimes, I wonder if this financial contribution to ICC is in any way related to ICC functions. Well, I am not drawing any conclusion here. Again, we are discussing about allegations. War crimes are one of the most difficult things to prove, therefore allegations themselves gain notability. (not every leader in the world gets alleged of war crimes) The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq details allegations of Targetting of civilians, excessive attacks, wilful killing and human treatment of civilians and allegations of complicity. These allegations have passed wikipedia notability test (as discussed above) to have its own article. Therefore, such allegations made by notable public figures both within Australia and outside and the ICC action group against Howard might deserve inclusion. WP:PRESERVE allows us to include relevant information phrased in a way which does not violate any wikipedia policy. While it may also belong to other relevant articles, the allegations are certainly relevant to be included here as they are specifically related to Howard the person himself. It may even be appropriate to phrase that there were street protests and demonstations against the Iraq war including calls for him to be tried for war crimes rather than he was alleged of war crimes.(appropriate citations) Like many of you, I have to admit that I personally dont believe that the war crime allegations or calls hold any traction and they will certainly fail. Docku^Hi 12:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources? All of the above is very interesting, but it is the personal opinion of people here, not a genuinely encyclopaedic judgement. Not to mention a rather original synthesis of various different sources. It also doesn't account for the two other ICC complaints agsinst Australian politicians which have not been heard of since they were made, much like this one (for the record, the ones against Philip Ruddock and Kevin Andrews). Orderinchaos 02:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Compromise edit

A new sentence can be added to the ninth header in the article (bold). The sentence can certainly be improved in a way that does not violate WP:NPOV.

Relationship with George Bush:A feature of John Howard's period in office was his close relationship with United States president George W. Bush[60] In May, 2003, Howard made an overnight stay at Bush's Prairie Chapel Ranch in Texas[61]. The two shared a common ideology on many issues, most visibly in their approach to the "War on Terror". The war in Iraq received wide criticism and protest both within Australia and the world including war crime allegations from Malaysian prime minister and a loosely associated ICC action group. Docku^Hi 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

At last someone suggests some compromise wording. I am disappointed it has taken so long. I'd prefer the following: The war in Iraq received both national and international criticism. John Howard was accused of war crimes by the Malaysian prime minister, Mahatir Mohammed{fact}. Mahatir is notable, since he is a foreign leader. ICCAction isn't, since it seems to be the work of a single private individual. --Surturz (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Suturz for your support. It is encouraging when it comes from people with whom I had difference of opinion with. I am confident that we will work out a text which satisfies all wikipedia policies. Docku^Hi 04:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Mahathir's comments, independently of the action, are fine - much as one might see Ahmedinejad's views of George Bush in his article. Orderinchaos 00:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Compromise edit comments

How wide is "wide"? 10km? 10cm? Just checking. regards --Merbabu (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, the sentence can be improved. Pls help yourself. I like the sarcasm though. :)Docku^Hi 21:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you picked up on the jest. I’m gonna be a pain by pointing out a problem without offering a solution. But, I’ll tweak it if something comes to mind. Now, back to finding solutions to other people’s real life problems. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutley, I like humour, anything which can diffuse tension. Docku^Hi 21:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Good-o. Just scroll up to the top of this discussion, will ya, read down to here and report back. --Pete (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please point to something specific. It is quite a lot to read. I guess I deserve some respect. :)Docku^Hi 00:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• In my opinion Docku has quite clearly shown he has read the discussion on this talk page and he has summarised in the section #Response to Gnangarra and a suggestion for a compromise (introduction). Moreover he is focussing on content not editors as per WP:NPA. I appreciate his attempt to focus on the issues and offer a compromise.
  While a small number of people are associated with the ICC action group, as Docku refers elsewhere in his response there were major protests against the war. These are not mentioned currently in the John Howard article.
  The Howard article is currently very incomplete because as a result of issues raised therein I suggested that we have a separate article on the Howard Government (nominated as different name initially) ... the intent was to separate Howard the man from the actions of his Government where appropriate - it wasn't a one-man show entirely and there were things in the John Howard article that could not be attributed usefully to Howard the man. I also nominated the Howard Government article for ACOTF and ... it currently is the ACOTF.
  In the process of developing the Howard Government article I removed information from the John Howard article - not all of it should not be duplicated in the John Howard article in my view - for example in the section Howard Government#Iraq we state

  Australian opinion was deeply divided on the war and large public protests against the war occurred.[29] Several senior figures from the Liberal party, including John Valder, a former president of the Liberal Party, and Howard's former friend and colleague, former Opposition Leader John Hewson and former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser publicly criticised Howard over Iraq.[30] John Valder's criticism was particularly strong, claiming that Howard should be tried and punished as a war criminal.[31]

  This is personal to Howard as well as being a feature of the Howard Government. There are probably other events which also need to be duplicated in order to ensure balance in both articles - how to achieve balanced articles without undue repetitiveness is probably only a matter that can be dealt with when tensions generally have been defused.
  In response then to the suggested wording - yes it is a start but perhaps there is more that can be added as per the Howard Govt current content I quoted above. It may belong under George Bush section or in the now-unbalanced area of Prime Minister.
  I think also there is some ambiguity as to whether a loosely associated ICC action group is somehow loosely associated with the Malaysian PM - I realise careful reading ensures no such confusion but tweaking can ensure that a quick and careless reader is not left with the probably wrong impression.
  --Matilda ^talk 00:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I have no problem with recording the allegations of war crimes by Valder and Mahatir; both are notable as Valder was a former ally of JH, and Mahatir was a foreign leader. ICCAction is not notable since it seems to be the work of a private individual, and allegations by Laborites, Democrats etc are not notable since they are political opponents of the Libs and it can be assumed that they opposed the Libs. If Laborites or Democrats supported the Iraq war, however, that might be notable. --Surturz (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't document criticism when it comes from political opponents, because it is just assumed? I can't agree with that at all. I certainly don't assume every australian politician that opposed the invasion thinks Howard should be referred to an international court. You can assert the event never happened, or that it came from non-notable persons, but you cannot exclude content simply based on the political affiliation of the person/group it comes from. MickMacNee (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just how much space in our encyclopaedia should we give to the words of cranks and axe-grinders? Mahatir Mohammed might accuse Howard of war crimes but he also accuses political opponents of sodomy. Sure, he's a notable person, but I think such allegations better belong in his article rather than those of his targets. My problem with this whole war crimes thing is that it is the view of a tiny minority, pushing their view through stunts and press releases, fighting hard for every single word of coverage. Including here in Wikipedia, I suspect. --Pete (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

With due respect, could you please specify whom you call cranks and axe grinders?? Docku^Hi 01:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question. I wasn't thinking of you specifically. Beg pardon. --Pete (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"fighting hard for every single word of coverage. Including here in Wikipedia, I suspect" I suggest you either substantiate that comment beyond a vague notion, or strike it out as not relevant. MickMacNee (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Note Skyring's response to this request was to bold the entire sentences. [48] MickMacNee (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is rhetorical or not, It came off a little offensive to my ears. I will follow WP:DTTR and not remind you of WP:Civil guidelines. We have heard your personal opinion on this topic and would encourage some discussion on specific wikipedia policy. Thanks. Docku^Hi 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A modest proposal

I've just had a brilliant idea. How about if everyone tries this:

1. If you're going to talk about the article, use normal text, like this sentence.
2. If you're going to comment about another editor's behavior, use small text, like this.
3. If you're going to comment about another editor's failure to follow this suggestion, also use small text.

After a while, it will become apparent to outside editors who among you is:

1. Not following this suggestion.
2. Making most of their comments about other editors, not the article

In this way, people who are interested in just talking about the article can read the normal text, ignore the small text. People who are interested in arguing can focus on the small text, not the normal text. The "winner" of the talk page will be the one who writes the least amount of small text.

If I were GodKing, I would just demand that everyone do this. Since I'm not, it's just a suggestion. But imagine if it worked; we could export it to other talk pages, as the "Talk:John Howard solution", and you would all be considered trailblazers. Oh, and as a side benefit, it might actually improve the article. --barneca (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

sarcasm is the lowest form of wit Sort of like that? :) I think everyone is able to spot comment that is clearly about the specific disputed content/relevant policies or not. The signal/noise problem the rest causes is a problem for readability, hence the poll above to attempt to show what people have/haven't got from the factual parts of the discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi barneca, I like your good will idea. I will try to follow (no guarantees though!) :). Docku^Hi 23:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

BUT WHAT IF I WANT TO TYPE IN BOLDED SCREAMING CAPS? :-)--Surturz (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free - it is an opt in poposal! Bold screaming caps will get you noticed - probably won't be refactored until you make them flash as well - see refactoring elsewhere with comment remove all blinking... this is a discussion, not an HTML competition . Ultimately of course everybody is probably more interested in comments about content rather than editing behaviour. de-emphasising the comments about behaviour improves readability in the sense of allowing us to discuss the content issues and that this the purpose of this page. Note at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. - Somebody might not change the formatting of your comment - they may remove them as irrelevant to the page. --Matilda ^talk 02:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As someone with impaired vision, I find people typing in smaller text extremely unhelpful. Orderinchaos 02:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, how about green text? --barneca (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I support good faith compromise. as always. But I have to admit that it is hard to make sure that I follow this when in a hurry to send a message. Docku^Hi 21:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Iraq war opposition

Well, Orderinchaos claims that Iraq war opposition (public protest) has been included in other articles and therefore shouldnt be included here. Any comments on this welcome.. Docku^Hi 02:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out how the ICC text is includable in the article 'Howard Government' rather than 'John Howard', despite the fact the ICC and a time expired govt have no connection at all. There is no logic to be found in these statements, as they are not being made from any position of logic or policy, just personal opinion governed by political belief. MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to do a policy oriented discussion about that in the relevant article. Docku^Hi 18:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it has been almost a week since this idea was proposed. I am going to add this information and I hope it will not be reverted immediately. Ideas to improve on this edit is certainly welcome. Docku^Hi 17:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation removed.

One might think, what with all the hoo-har over that ICC stuff, that current editors would have familiarised themselves with the Biographies of Living People policies. Let me quote an important part of this policy:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Looking at the material in the article about John Howard and the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, I find that it is unsourced, and is controversial enough to be the subject of an edit war. Accordingly, I have removed it. That "bunker" in the Australian embassy sounds rather unlikely to me. In fact, I have removed it twice over, both times noting that I have done so under WP:BLP for being unsourced. I note that User:MickMacNee has been edit-warring over this material, against warnings. --Pete (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that we have a source for the bunker - I'm surprised at this, but I've been wrong before, and I'm grateful for the source. However, the rest of it is unsourced and I'm removing the whole lot, as the bunker bit isn't really much of a stand-alone necessity for this BLP. I'm also going to do a 3RR report on MickMac, because of the 4 reverts. --Pete (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There no BLP issue with the bunker, it just need sourcing tag as {{fact}} and move on. I have requested full protection this the third edit war in the last week - 10 days. Gnangarra 11:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP is pretty clear, and though we have a source for the bunker, most of the rest of the material is unsourced. Given the recent history of this article, I think that MicMacNee should have been particularly careful to follow the letter of wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Article should not be locked ..Again! There's no BLP issue. It's just the usual excuse that's regularly used to start a revert frezie. Locking the article is just tolerating the warriors, as the warriors successfully lock everyone else out.--Lester 11:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that the PM/911 stuff is hugely contentious in itself. What really bugs me is that it became the focus for edit-warring rather than discussion. I'm within my rights to remove it under BLP for being (largely) unsourced, though I'll admit that's wikiprecious.

But just how much of our lives are we going to spend arguing over trivia here? --Pete (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objection to a version of the added material in question coming back at some time. My issue was more in the random insertion of it where it not only breaks the flow but seems to carry more weight than it merits. The Australian Journal of Political Science (42(2) I think but will have to check) has an entire article on Howard in the US at Sep 11, how he was received by Congress, how it affected the decisions he made afterward etc. It's not a BLP issue, and for once is actually relevant to the man rather than some other thing. Just has to be done appropriately rather than randomly. Orderinchaos 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - cite is: DeBats, Donald A. (2007). "Mr Howard goes to Washington: September 11, the Australian-American relationship and attributes of leadership". Australian Journal of Political Science. 42 (2). Routledge: 231–252. ISSN 1036-1146. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Orderinchaos 12:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then there was never a case for the material to be rapidly deleted, as it was. Instead, the capable wordsmiths among us only needed to put their talent to work by rewording the material to give it context and flow.--Lester 14:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that right now there is nowhere for the material to go without sticking out like a sore thumb. The "Prime Minister" section of this article is barely in a stub state at the moment. If we could agree on a way to rectify that, then we could discuss how the appropriate content may go into the article. Orderinchaos 15:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation here. It is an important information written in too much details thus sounding like a trivia. A rewording to make it concise and inserting at an appropriate place (if there is one) should be fine. I dont see any urgency in removing or adding this material as it is not potentially damaging to the subject. When the edit warriors refrain themselves from their obsessive compulsive reaction of reverting when something they dont like (or something inserted or removed by people they dont like) is in the article, and rather choose to reason with others in a polite and civil fashion in the discussion page, lot of trouble and time can be saved. Docku^Hi 15:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - it's completely neutral in a political sense, it's a matter of isolating the salient issues and writing about those. The problem we have here is a slightly bigger one that the "Prime Minister" section, which should ultimately contain the information, is in such a poor state at present that we need to think how that might be reworked such that this information, in an appropriate form, can be accommodated. All ideas are welcome on this one, although probably the soundest ones would relate to structure and perhaps constructing a timeline. Orderinchaos 17:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To start with, quotes of his vision of Australia, his position on GST, opinion on Pauline Hanson and his attack on Labour's economic history seem to interrupt the flow of information and can be kept aside for the specific The Howard Government article. They can rather be phrased into simple sentences. His presence in US during Sep 11 can be moved to "Relationship with Bush". In fact, "Relationship with Bush" can be renamed. One option is "Iraq War and relationship with Bush". Docku^Hi 17:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I rather like the chronological approach taken by two featured biographical articles, Don Dunstan (former Labor premier of South Australia) and Thomas Playford IV (former Liberal premier of South Australia). Hadn't thought about their relevance to this article until tonight, but the structure which is basically freeform text broken into sections works extremely well and tells a story. The situation with regard to Pauline Hanson belongs more in the biography than in the Howard Government article as it doesn't relate to how Howard's Cabinet governed but was more a party matter within which he took (or arguably did not take) a particular role—the separation is probably (although somewhat artificially) that this article would look like a biographical summary of the man, noting where he came from, what he did, what positions he espoused, his direct impact etc (which to some extent can be sourced from Quarterly Essay, Aust J of Political Science, his two biographies in 1997 and 2007, etc) while the HG article is more like the achievements and events surrounding the Government he led (which may or may not have had a great deal to do with Howard himself), the sort of things you'd find in the Political Chronicles in the Aust Journal of Politics and History, and various other academic sources backed up where necessary by contemporary news coverage. Orderinchaos 20:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've quickly reviewed both articles and they stand as a shining contrast to this one. Coherent, consistent and complete. High time for a complete rewrite here, but it needs to be made with care and co-operation. Maybe we can establish a "shadow" or "sand-pit" article until it reaches a form we all agree on, then we can switch it with what we have now. Of course the existing article can be mined for references and material. --Pete (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking for some sort of model or ideal to work from for almost three months, and I'm amazed I didn't think to look at these two. I think the "sandpit" idea is a good one. I'd laugh if one day we're sending this one to FAC given all the conflict we've seen to date. Orderinchaos 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been more than 24 hours now so I'm going to try unprotecting. Please be warned, though, that if edit warring resumes, I will just reprotect the page. So please use the talk pages to discuss material rather than edit warring. Sarah 15:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Aus_spice" :
  • {{cite web | url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21293182-28737,00.html | title=Asian influence spices up contest | publisher=[[The Australian]] | date=[[27 February]] [[2007]] | accessdate=2007-07-27}}
  • {{cite web | url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21293182-28737,00.html | title=Asian influence spices up contest | publisher=''[[The Australian]]'' | date=[[27 February]] [[2007]] | accessdate=2007-07-27}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

DumZiBoT, I draw your attention to WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Being non-sentient is no excuse for ignoring WP policy. You pro-ALP bias is obvious, this article has had a lot of POV-pushers before and this blatant disregard of WP:NPOV is unacceptable. This is not a forum to air your dissatisfaction with John Howard --Surturz (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

:D Orderinchaos 19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

call for war crime trials by Mahathir

Well, I am proposing to add Malaysian prime Minister Mahathir's call to charge western leaders including John Howard for war crimes. The reference is here. opinions welcome. Docku^Hi 17:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This has more relevance to Mahathir bin Mohamad than his targets, but is not mentioned in his article. --Pete (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It is(was) mentioned in Blair article in post politics as the criticism was repeated when Blair was invited to speak in Malaysia and Mahathir criticised the choice of Blair. Gnangarra 13:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it is still there, though it shouldnt matter if it is still there or not. Docku^Hi 15:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Critisism has a more suitable place in the target's page while I dont mind including that in Mahathir's page also, if it helps defining the character of the person. Paul Keating's description of Mahathir as "recalictrant" in Mahathir's article here is an example. I would not discard the opinion of a democratically elected representative of about 27 million people as irrelevant.

Quote from WP:NPOV, Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Mentioning the great relationship he enjoyed with Bush but not the criticism from another national leader is a violation of WP:NPOV. Docku^Hi 13:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Docku here, his relations with other notable world leaders should be given equivalent weight. The issue would be how significant is Mahathir as a world leader, what was the relation between JH and Mahathir as leaders, rather than the relationship between countries. There was(is) alot of lingering resentment between the governments of the two countries because of Keatings remarks. Gnangarra 13:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In assessing "how significant is Mahathir as a world leader" - that is not an absolute but needs also to be read in the context of Malaysian Australian bilateral relations - Mahathir is more significant as a world leader in the Australian context than say the leader of Denmark might be (notwithstandig "Our Mary" and the frequent reporting of her, he husband and her children in our news media). There is no doubt that Mahathir is one of the world leaders recognisable by Australians - possibly because of Keating's remarks, possibly because of his longevity and almost certainly because Malaysia is an important country to Australia - not sure if the perception is reciprocated. --Matilda ^talk 21:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Good points both of you. In fact, I have never considered him a strong world leader, not that it matters. While, we may have disagreements about whether Mahathir can be considered a world leader, as a leader of a democratically elected nation, his opinions are notable (while it may probably have no strong global political implications), worthy and relevant enough to be included as it is within the norms of wikipedia policies. Docku^Hi 22:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Equating Mahathir with George Bush as an example of WP:NPOV seems odd, more so when considering that balancing "the great relationship he enjoyed with Bush" with "criticism from another national leader" is a matter of oranges and apples. Two quite different topics. Balancing Mahathir's fruity views would require some commentary about war crimes and why Howard is unlikely to be charged - the relationship with Bush is quite irrelevant. I feel that some editors are more concerned about linking Howard with accusations of war crimes, regardless of how ridiculous that is, than in providing a full and balanced picture.

Again, I point out that if Howard is ever charged with war crimes, then it's a legitimate and important story, worthy of inclusion. Including unfounded accusations as if they were serious merely misleads our readers. Let's stick with facts rather than speculation. --Pete (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

We are not equating Bush and Mahathir. We are just talking about opposing views and presentation of those views in the article. Well, in essence, we are talking about including criticism of Mahathir in the article (just like it is included in Tony Blair article). I dont see it violates any wikipedia policy. If you think it does, we would like to hear about the specific policy it violates (which you think) and the your explanation why it does? Docku^Hi 04:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I rebutted your views above, pointing out the flaw in your argument - namely that you were trying to balance Howard's close relationship with Bush against Mahathir's criticism of Howard. These are two different topics. The long Criticism of Tony Blair article goes into some detail about the Iraq war, but does not include Mahathir's comments about Bush, Blair and Howard being war criminals, worse than Radovan Karadzic.

As for specific policy, let me quote from WP:UNDUE: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. No matter how noisy, nor how prominent the proponents may be, Mahathir's view that John Howard is a war criminal is a tiny minority view. Mahathir is not a world leader. He is not even a national leader. In this matter, he is the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society, complete with dubious websites.

If you want to criticise Howard for participating in a disastrous war, then do so using legitimate sources. Surely we don't have to resort to wild claims of war crimes from the fringe. --Pete (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

We are not comparing apples and oranges. We are noting supporter's appreciation and opposer's critisim. The reason it is not in Tony Blair article is because a person involved in this discussion just removed it. While it is in everyone's right to remove it, not mentioning it here can be considered disingenuous.

Opposition to Iraq war and criticism of it is certainly not a tiny minority view and not a fringe as well, not at all compared to the flat-earth belief. Therefore, I dont think it violates WP:UNDUE.

Well, I know surturz and Orderinchaos have already expressed their opinions here and here. I would like to hear more opinion and see how it goes. Docku^Hi 11:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposition to Iraq war and criticism of it is certainly not a tiny minority view. Nobody said it was. But calling John Howard a war criminal is a different thing, and very much the view of a tiny minority. Again, you are either confusing two different things, or deliberately misrepresenting the points made. Either way, I'm not sure that you should be editing an encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You are setting up a Strawman argument. While I am talking about Mahathir's criticism of Iraq war in his own words, you force me to defend against war crimes, which I know I can not defend and dont need to. Docku^Hi 12:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

More misrepresentation. You said, in the very first post in this section, Well, I am proposing to add Malaysian prime Minister Mahathir's call to charge western leaders including John Howard for war crimes. That isn't generalised criticism of the Iraq war. It's a specific attack on John Howard, stating that he is a war criminal.[49] In addition, Mahathir is not the Malaysian prime minister - that position has been held for the past five years by Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. --Pete (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this edit, User:Docku has changed his original proposal from: Well, I am proposing to add Malaysian prime Minister Mahathir's call to charge western leaders including John Howard for war crimes. The reference is here. opinions welcome. to this: Well, I am proposing to add former Malaysian prime Minister Mahathir's criticism of iraq war and John Howard in his own words. The reference is here. opinions welcome.. I have restored the original wording, to which several other editors have responded. --Pete (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Pls dont change my edits though. Docku^Hi 13:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• In relation to Skyring's removal of comment from Blair article referred to above by Docku - note that Skyring was reverted by an editor totally uninvolved in this debate with the comment If quotation is correct, to remove it is contrary to the NPOV policy. We may not like the quote but is not for us to judge.If incorrect, remove by all means.. --Matilda ^talk 22:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism by Mahathir

New Proposal: Well, I am proposing to add former Malaysian prime Minister Mahathir's criticism of Iraq war and John Howard in his own words. The reference is here. opinions welcome. Docku^Hi 14:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

While discussing the topic above, pls mark your opinion distinct by support, oppose or neutral. Support means inclusion of mahathir's criticism.

• Support. as per my comments above. Docku^Hi 14:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose improve the reference I'll asses that but one from the SMH attributes Mahathir statement to a second hand account by the event organiser said a spokesman for the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim group that organised the event. and Spokesman Mohammed Shafiq told AFP that Mahathir, who was in office from 1981 to 2003, wanted to see the trio tried "in absence for war crimes committed in Iraq". it doesnt actually directly quote Mahathir. Gnangarra 15:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Gnangarras comments: I respect your opinion. But Mahathir would have denied those claims if he was not supportive of it. I couldnt find his denials anywhere. If he has denied those claims attributed to him, I agree with you that we dont need to waste our time talking about this. Docku^Hi 15:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

but you did say Malaysian prime Minister Mahathir's criticism of Iraq war and John Howard in his own words. and the source isnt in Mahathirs own words. Gnangarra 15:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it about how I form the sentence, not the reference? I am ready to form a sentence which is a fair reflection of the reference. Docku^Hi 15:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Docku could put down his actual proposed wording for comment? --Pete (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - the war crimes issue needs context. The context to me is that Mahathir is lining Howard up with Bush and Blair. Others have associated Howard with Bush and Blair too and Howard was keen to be seen in their company - part of being a "world leader".
  Mahathir has been vocal on war crimes for some time. See for example this January 2007 announcement of the creation of a war crimes tribunal that would focus on victims of abuse in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. This SBS ref is similar to the SMH one and they both seem to be based on AFP . I do not think the objection by Gnangarra is very useful. Mahathir spoke to a group and that group's spokesman reported his speech. Perhaps quoting directly from his speech would be better but it would seem "outsiders were barred" and there was some censorship according to a Malaysian news report .
  This page refers to

  The Kuala Lumpur War Crime Commission chaired by former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad heard nine charges against US President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister John Howard for the sufferings of the people in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.
  The charges against the US and its allies were presented by the legal counsel on behalf of the war crime victims, Matthias Chang, before Dr Mahathir and the other five commission members at the final day of the three-day war crimes conference organised by the Perdana Global Peace Conference.
  Chang said Bush, Blair and Howard, through a deliberate plan of deception, falsehood, forgery and outright lies, misled their respective Congress and Parliament to wage war against Iraq which was a "crime against peace."
  The trio were also being charged for embarking on a systematic campaign to destroy Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine economically and militarily, he said.
  He said the third charge against them was for ordering the destruction of vital facilities essential to civilian lives in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine while the fourth was for the bombing of schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, residential areas and historical sites and conveniently labelling the destruction as "collateral damage".
  The three leaders were also charged with allowing the use of weapons of mass destruction that inflicted indiscriminate death and suffering against civilian targets such as the cluster bomb, napalm bomb, phosporous bomb and depleted uranium ammunition, said Chang.
  The sixth charge said that Bush, Blair and Howard have fraudulently manipulated the United Nations and the Security Council as well as corrupting its members to commit crimes against peace and war times, he said.

  There are a number of things to be tackled and it seems to me we are getting tied up in knots approaching it bit by bit. I don't know why the Perdana Global Peace Conference hasn't had more airplay - I can speculate but ... I think it is more symptomatic of WP:Bias than lack of notability. See for example this page (Probably not a reliable source but still useful for some context). The article on Perdana Leadership Foundation is all but a stub. There is no mention of Mahathir in Criticism of the Iraq War, Opposition to the Iraq War, Legality of the Iraq War or any related article. Seems surprising to me given Malaysia is a country with a significant Muslim population : (60% Muslim population - ie 60% of 27.5m = 16.5m Muslims) . Such a mention would give further neutrality to the article. However, I accept that Mahathir's tribunal has been criticised as by a former United Nations senior official and activists, who say the body lacks legitimacy. ...there was no legal basis for the tribunal which would become a "circus". [50]
  I note also that Mahathir's article states In February 2007, four non-governmental organizations: the Sarajevo School of Science and Technology, the Congress of Bosniak Intellectuals, and two Christian organizations: the Serb Civil Council and the Croat National Council, nominated Mahathir for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work during the conflict - the same time as KL war crime commission / Perdana Global Peace Conference.
  Quite frankly it seems to me that this topic needs some addressing and in a structured well thought out way. Adding a bit here or there appears not to be working (though in my view it is better than saying nothing). Could we have a sub-page which tackles the topic, the question of sources, and the question of associated articles? --Matilda ^talk 23:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

response to I do not think the objection by Gnangarra is very useful. Mahathir spoke to a group and that group's spokesman reported his speech. Perhaps quoting directly from his speech would be better but it would seem "outsiders were barred" and there was some censorship according to a Malaysian news report . I said the source being quoted isnt the words of Mahathir but that of an event organisor saying he said, now your saying my opinion isnt very useful, noting skyring is block for making a very similar remark that was referred to as being a PA. That aside you agree that its the words of the event organisor, then even go on to say that it was a closed event that was subject to (as reported by Malaysian sources) censorship. This only makes the comments from that event as being very suspect. Provide a source that quotes Mahathir directly, that isnt from this event but an actual public comment then I reconsider. Gnangarra 05:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Gnangarra seeks a Mahathir quote. In the Blair context the BBC quotes him as saying in 2007:

    Dr Mahathir said: "What is Blair if not the co-murderer of 500,000 Iraqi children and the liar who told the British that Saddam had WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) which could be launched against Britain within 45 minutes?
    "History should remember Blair and Bush as the 'killers of children'." [51]

  • Perhaps we could just say fort he time being in this article that there was opposition - once again from the BBC but in 2003

    There were large-scale protests in many major Australian cities over the weekend, and on Monday hundreds of people tried to storm the parliament building.
    Inside the building, Prime Minister John Howard was repeatedly heckled from the public gallery.
    Mr Howard has been one of America's staunchest allies in its stance against Baghdad, and 2,000 Australian troops are participating in the US-led war.
    But the prime minister has faced stiff opposition from the Australian public, many of whom are against the conflict.
    Opinion polls are, however, swinging in Mr Howard's favour.
    A poll commissioned last week found that 47% of respondents were against military action compared to 70% the previous week. [52]

    --Matilda ^talk 00:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose --Surturz (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - unless someone can tell me why the opinion of Mahathir is more notable than his normal anti-western/anti-white-person rantings.--Merbabu (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment:Some answers to your question may be found here. That was a response to User:Skyring from User:Nil Einne in Tony Blair article talk page. It is really not upto the wikipedia editors to analyse and decide what is in our opinion right to add to articles. Any relevant, notable materials which does not violate any of the wikipedia policies can or should be added to the article regardless of whether we like it or not. Our job is really to focus on wikipedia policies. I would like to draw your attention to this quote from WP:VERI, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I believe that this disputed edit conforms to WP:Verifiability, WP:reliable sources. Not adding the edit may be violation of WP:NPOV. However, I start to believe that adding the edit may be a violation of WP:UNDUE, unless someone has a different explanation to convince me otherwise. Therefore, I am also not going to push for the inclusion in the article though I was the one who proposed it. I, however, do think this is one of the most unbalanced articles I have come across. Docku^Hi 14:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your suggesting the article is unbalanced because we haven’t listed the views of a racist hypocrite (he berates the “white” man for their inherent racism – isn’t that in itself racist? While he presided over a govt and constitution that enshrines racism). Yet, the Howard Govt kept getting re-elected during a period of economic growth, low inflation, and high unemployment unprecedented in degree and duration. The feeling was one of great prosperity and the perception – correct or otherwise – was that govt, howard and Costello were largely responsible. Now, whether this credit is appropriately attributed is irrelevant (yes, I know about the Hawke/Keating reforms), it is the *perception* of great economic success of the govt is what was strikingly notable, but to my reading, not mentioned. As a minimum, the econimic success of Australia should be mentioned, even if the article doesn't directly attribute it to Howard and govt.

So, the notion of “imbalance” – Mahathir and economic management – swings both ways. --Merbabu (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

POV tag Aug 2008

The article is clearly unbalanced. Latest edit by Surturz removed reference to Iraq war protests. It was unbalanced before - it is even more unbalanced now.--Matilda ^talk 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It belongs in Howard Government, if anywhere (although public opposition to the war is already documented there). The protests were not about JH himself, nor were they protests about his personal relationship with GWB. Whoever added that text should find a more appropriate place to include them. The text does not belong in the "Relationship with GWB" section. --Surturz (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to moving the comments, I have an objection to nothing being mentioned in this article on the subject at all. It is not merely a function of the Howard government - although I believe it belongs there too, as I have said repeatedly above it is personal to Howard too and a major feature of the later years of his term as prime minister. I am not sure that the link with Bush is that tenuous. Their relationship predated the war but Howard's support of Bush's actions obviously strengthened the personal relationship as well as US Australian bilateral relations. However, I am not concerned if it appears in the section with Bush or elsewhere, I am concerned that it appears nowhere. There are plenty of other omissions too but let's continue to deal with this one. --Matilda ^talk 21:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

While Howard Government article should serve to have detailed description of his Government, it needs not be used as a pretext to move all criticism from here thus unbalancing the main article Howard was the head of the government, thus any criticism of his government is certainly applicable to him. I dont see any problem in having some important informations overlapping in two articles. In fact, I am suggesting to make a criticism section in this article just like in Manmohan Singh (I am not claiming that this is the best example though) which should detail (or list) all criticisms he received during his career. Quote from WP:NPOV, All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. Docku^Hi 21:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A criticism section is a disaster. Sorry to be blunt. It’s like trivia lists. It just becomes a dumping ground for any one with an axe to grind. Even worse for the axe-grinders, there would have to be a separate section for praise, of equal length of course, for that “balance” notion and due weight. I’ve got a headache already thinking about the opportunity for edit wars, rfc’s, and failed mediation requests.

Rather, if there is criticism for a political personality – and my threshold for inclusion is clearly higher than some here – then it should be well-written and interwoven into the article’s prose at the appropriate subject section. There’s even a tag/template we could pull to encourage they be incorporated into the article. --Merbabu (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What a shame to see a fat ugly POV tag slapped on. I’m surprised that it has come from Matilda, rather than one of the usual suspects of reactionary and combative editors this page attracts (apparently representing all apparent POVs). Is there not a better way to solve this? Come on, one edit you don’t like and an ugly tag is slapped on for all our *readers* to see. A tag – IMO – is tantamount to digging a trench, and an announcement of impending stalemate.

I agree that a mention of the Iraq war is required, but on the other hand, I agree that a list of criticisers is not what we’re here to provide. Putting in criticism in any article is not a way to make “balance” (whatever that is). It just makes wikipedia sound whiny and bratty. It’s blatantly see-through as POV. Mention by all means the Iraq War, and JH and GWB relationship but let people make up their own minds. A list of detractors (and what about supporters?) is silly - putting someone like Mahathir – for example – as a credible opinion is laughable.

Can you reconsider Matilda? Surturz? I’m sure you can work it out. --Merbabu (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds more like a personal attack. I would not respond to it. I guess reporting is better. Docku^Hi 22:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A personal attack? I don't understand. Who are you suggesting is attacking who? Please explain. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I quote from above "axe-grinders" and "usual suspects of reactionary and combative editors this page attracts (apparently representing all apparent POVs)". Docku^Hi 22:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I’ve asked to avoid trench warfare, requested cooperation, and suggested a middle ground position. Now, you want to report me for a personal attack? I think you need to re-read it. --Merbabu (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain what all these mean "axe-grinders" and "usual suspects of reactionary and combative editors this page attracts (apparently representing all apparent POVs). Thanks. Docku^Hi 23:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I could - on your talk page. Any comments on the 2nd paragraph? - ie, the suggestions on content. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. That means, the first paragraph was? Docku^Hi 00:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Am a bit busy right now so cannot respond in detail but I apologise if it looks like my reaction ot jsut one edit. It isn't. It is the response to a very long discussion (see above while not archived) and we are getting no where. I ahve suggested taking it to a sub-page. I have agreed to several compromise edits. I have responded to the RfC above. This is not a one-on-one discussion. At present the article is unbalanced - I do not think I am the only one to hold that view. The tag is calling the unbalanced article unbalanced - no more no less. --Matilda ^talk 00:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK no worries. I've been bold and moved it down to the section involved. If you don't like this, pls revert and I won't revert it. I hope you leave it though. :-) (actually, there is somewhere a tag that applies to a section) I too am meant to be busy but will try to look into it more soon. --Merbabu (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Further and very generally, the stalemates here a sourced not so much in all the different (perceived) POV's amongst us editors, but what I see as fundamental disagreements here over what a wikipedia article should be. It appears that for some, listing criticisms and justifying the opinion’s notability against a personality is necessary to maintain NPOV (although, on a tangent, where is the corresponding praise for “balance”?). Whereas for me, and a few others (possibly Orderinchaos for one?) this seems to be particularly whiny and bratty way to write an article. I would rather see a cohesive essay style article of prose that just states what happened and minimises (or even banishes) all the commentary that is insisted upon for “balance” and NPOV. The suggested Don Chipp article is a beautiful example provided earlier of what could be done. There was another biography offered recently as an example of what to aspire to. who was it? Orderinchaos – when are you going to provide your long promised re-write of this horrible article? ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally am not particularly interested in merely listing criticisms, happy to take on board any attempt to incorporate some facts - positive and negative. Hapyt to discuss structure too. My attempt to add something resulted in personal attacks here and at WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:BLP, WP:3RR and an RfC (above disguised as a policy RfC). We haven't even got to the fundamental disagreement or agreement of what a wikipedia article should be - though it is possible that that underlying issue may account for some of the difference when it comes to the trivia. We argue to the point of no resolution sentence by sentence in a totally nonconstructive and non-collaborative way. --Matilda ^talk 01:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - there has been, at times, also considerable consensus across political editing bias. The creation of the Howard Govt article (for which you were largely responsible) got almost universal support (as it should have). We need a few more masterstrokes like that. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, if editors want to attack JH in his own BLP, please at least do it with facts. Don't like the Iraq War? Quote how many Australian troops died, how much it cost, what international sanctions against Australia were incurred, FACTS of that sort. Hunting around for suitably eminent Howard-detractors to quote, or allegations of War Crimes when it is patently clear that JH is not a war criminal, is wasting everyone's time. What war HASN'T been protested by a portion of the population of the country waging it? The protest is not fit for inclusion. --Surturz (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well I have tried again per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle using the BBC ref cited above. I note Surturz's "constructive criticism" in particular that referring to specific detractos is unhelpful. However, I don't think the issue is the "cost" - "good" and "bad" wars cost. The lack of opposition to the intervention in East Timor wasn't because of cost - it was because it was (by and large) seen as the right thing to do. The public's perception of the intervention in Iaq was not similarly characterised. Matilda ^talk 04:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'e made it clear that like Surturz i don't support the digging up of "notable" detractors to provide criticism for "balance". Instead, the majority Australian opposition to the war should, and already is quoted using an opinion poll. That's more notable than, say, the former PM of Malaysia slagging off (once again) the Australian PM. The majority opposition is, as Matilda points out, the big difference between the East Timor exercise and iraq. --Merbabu (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm - just to clarify - I could not see anything on the majority Australian opposition to the war should, and already is quoted using an opinion poll. other than what I just added so I read it that you (Merbabu) support the addition?--Matilda ^talk 05:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was less than clear: a million other things in my head today as I spend too much time away from my work duties.

My point being, IMO stating that the majority of Australians apparently did not support the war (or our involvement) is a much better way to provide “criticism” or “balance” than by quoting the opinion of detractors, whether this criticism be war criminal petitions to the ICC or ramblings of a former Malaysian PM with Malay chauvinist hang-ups over his country’s European colony past. That Australians largely appeared to have been against the war but Howard went in anyway is hugely important, and makes the other criticisms look trivial. Your inclusion of poll data to support this point was a small masterstroke – it contributes towards a much more mature article in comparison to a listing of “notable” criticisms and commentators. Thanks --Merbabu (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

2007 election section - needs trimming

Could the section on the 2007 election be condensed? Say by half? It’s very long. Remember, this is a biography and a summary. I suggest the excised info gets moved into Australian federal election, 2007 if not already there.

I might try and tackle this in the next few days. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)