Talk:John Howard

Relationship with Indigenous Australia

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

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

Gun Control, East Timor and the GST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm struggling to find what you are wanting to change in the article. Is this just WP:SOAPBOX? Timeshift (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Until you mention gun control, East Timor and the GST you do not have a full discussion of the Howard Prime Ministership. Agreed? Presently these key events are not even mentioned! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 06:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And did you even bother to take more than a passing glance at the article? Because if you did, you'd notice that this article is about John Howard, and not the Howard Government, which there are numerous links to in the article. Howard Government mentions all three. Now run along. Timeshift (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. An article that can talk about Howard and economic management and Howard and US relations can talk about Howard and East Timor and Howard and gun control. Now lose the "attitude".

Hey, i've always been against the seperation of Howard the person and Howard the government as different articles, for example the reason you've just stated. The point stands however, that amongst John Howard and Howard Government, it's all there. If you read the article and knew this, you wouldn't have presented the above arguments in the way you did. Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's a biography article on Howard, and I actually have no problem with this being different from a Howard Government article; I am just not yet happy with how this has been done. My comments are obviously intended to be considered for inclusion somewhere in amongst or in addition to the Headings marked 6 through to 6.6 which deal with "John Howard Prime Minister" which do not yet reference these three major (and controversial) issues and Howard's role in them. Sections 6-6.6 have major gaps. IN a John Howard article it is perfectly relevant to list his major areas of policy involvement. So far this job is incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 08:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If gun control, east timor and the GST should be in this article, then any single policy aspect of the government could be. The three belong in Howard Government. Howard the person was directly involved in US relations via his personal friendship with Bush, and sections of the media put the market-controlled economy that was booming thanks to mining, in the second half of his Prime Ministership, down to Howard's skill. Note my skepticism. Regardless, when a poor decision such as the division of the subject in to two articles is made, there will always be disputes over what should be where. But the point remains you did not read the article to note the Howard Government article otherwise you would have brought it in to your discussion. But perhaps that is another fault of having two articles. Timeshift (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Because Howard was the one who had the tiff with Obama? That relates to Howard the person, not Howard the government. I still think having two articles just creates problems i've already said, and also duplication. Two articles shouldn't exist - I guess that's popular input for you. Timeshift (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Do ou believe that Howard’s fallout with Obama is more significant to Howard the person than the 1996 gun control measures, or the GST? That’s the impression the article provides. These two issues are closely related to Howard (arguably more so than East Timor). I will get around to it sooner or later if no one else does.

I’m not sure why you can’t see the need for a separate article, but from where I sit, it seems to be used well to justify the exclusion of major items (GST, gun control) and to justify the inclusion of relatively trivial things (Obama). Perhaps the problem is not so much the principle of two articles, but the implementation, which I have indicated here is fairly lousy. --Merbabu (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is the fact that GST/guns/timor were legislated policies by the Howard government, while the Obama/Howard thing was a tiff and not a legislated policy? It is not rocket science. If GST/guns/timor should be in the JH article, then so should the rest of the government policies and the Howard Government article should be deleted. Timeshift (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You say "If GST/guns/timor should be in the JH article, then so should the rest of the government policies and the Howard Government article should be deleted" The corollary of that idea would be that nothing relating to John Howard’s PM’ship should then go in the Howard article, which of course would be complete bollocks, an approach that no-one in favour of the split (the majority) supported.

I think the distintion between Howard the Prime Minister and the Government is very clear to all, as is the fact that there are some stand out and notable items that are very closely related to Howard, and there are many numerous others that are details, which in theory could go on and on and on. The all or nothing approach that you are suggesting is not going to work (as you know, indeed as you wish?), rather some discretion is needed. If anything that the Govt enacted goes into the John Howard article, where does one stop? The principle of a split is broadly accepted, but clearly implentation is going wrong if gun control and GST is not mentioned, whereas a spat with Obama is mentioned.--Merbabu (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Many Howard Government policies were personally instigated by Howard. Not so much East Timor and gun control (which had bipartisan support and probably would have turned out similar under a Labor government, though Howard deserves kudos for pushing gun control through largely against his own constituency), but things like budget surpluses, GST, Workchoices, refugee policy. So in that sense they were to do with Howard the person, and I think they all deserve a mention here. (And are all far more significant than the Obama comment, which I agree belongs here also).

Even better, merge Howard Government back to here. All the split has done is given us all one MORE thing to argue about, and editing on both articles has pretty well stalled. p.s. Merabu I'm curious to see whether there really was a majority consensus to split. In any case, if I did support the split back then (and my recollection was I was a "weak oppose", and possibly didn't express an opinion), I certainly oppose it now! Peter Ballard (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

While implementaion has been lousy (Obama “yes”, GST “no”), having a single article was and is fundamentally flawed. It just becomes a dumping ground for every little detail that is notable to a government, but not notable to a biography. It was one big list. --Merbabu (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree that the split created less argument. Obama aside, it has seen an almost complete decrease in trivial, details that really relate to the govt being inserted and then edit warred over. Interesting that no-one is interested in adding details to the Howard Govt article, but they are lining up to put it under John Howard. That speaks volumes – to me anyway. --Merbabu (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You're joking right? I suggest you check out Talk:John Howard/Archive 14, Talk:John Howard/Archive 15 and Talk:John Howard/Archive 16; all devoted to an argument over one detail which was ALREADY in the Howard Government article. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, I really don't want to work through 3 archives. What am I looking for? argument related to a split, or just argument?

Further, the level of argument over an article has nothing to do with whether it should be deleted. Then we’d delete George Bush (or for that matter John Howard. --Merbabu (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The debate was over whether to mention a submission to the International Criminal Court to try Howard for war crimes. Currently it's in neither article, though at the time (at least while I was participating in the debate before I gave up and left) it was in the Howard Government article. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What ever the merits of either side of that specific debate, it actually has nothing to do with an article split. Ie, personally, I’d say it doesn’t belong in either - but that's beside the point at hand. --Merbabu (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Howard Government is a waste of time, duplication, and causes bickering about what goes where. I could argue Merbabu's belief in holding a majority, but there is no point, as wikipedia works on consensus not majority, of which there is none. The two articles are hanging in limbo. But whatever helps Merbabu sleep. Timeshift (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

But whatever helps Merbabu sleep. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok the picture is clearer to me now. I didn't know the history of "the split" and the arguments about it. So you can take my reaction as a fresh look at the results of the split: I believe there are some major omissions in the John Howard the man profile: Port Arthur; East Timor (his letter to Indonesia for instance) and the GST Election.

On another point: I think comments on Howard made by his significant adversaries and his supporters are very relevant eg "Little suburban solicitor" by Keating; "man of courage and integrity" by Ramos-Horta; "man of heart and a man of steel" by Bush; "I have been time and again grateful for his counsel" by Blair; "I will always remember that he was the first voice on the phone after the Tsunami" by Yodoyono; "if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq. Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric" by Obama etc. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 05:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not meant to be lists of quotes. Rather, we report on events around those quotes. Besides, that would just be asking for trouble on a page with a history of "bickering". --Merbabu (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There never was consensus for the article split, as some have claimed above. The split was made in the middle of a separate fierce discussion/edit war over the Obama quote. Objections were raised at the time, but ignored. Now it seems, any negative facts go to the "dumping ground" of the Howard Government article, in order to keep the John Howard article a clean biography.--Lester 17:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"US Relations" should be expanded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bizarre Censorship: I agree with you, Observoz, that these quotes should be in the article. The improvement of this section is impossible while certain editors endeavour to remove and censor commonly known facts that are widely covered by the mainstream media. For example, the quotes from Howard and Obama during their disagreement (mentioned by user:Observoz above) got deleted during edit wars. It is beyond belief that such famous and well known content is censored in this way. It used to be in the article. Now it isn't. If some editors delete facts they perceive as being negative to Howard's image, it provides a disincentive for other editors to add any facts to the article, whether positive or negative. The article then comes to a stalemate.--Lester 20:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest more care be taken with accusations of censorship. It was likely not your intent, Lester, but such comments might suggest a lack of good faith. Censorship is major wiki-sin, yet there are a number of reasons why info on Howard that you would have liked in the article did not get consensus for inclusion (info which of course was equally balanced between negative and positive info). Rather than censorship, these reasons were provided by a variety of editors, a number of whom are of very high calibre and whom I know in real life are quite left in their political outlook – yet, they are just good at not letting their bias’ seep into their WP editing. As for the Obama drama, there was indeed edit warring going on, but there was a whole lot more written on talk pages about it, and the current position is the rough consensus arrived at. Ie, the version there now got thrashed out on talk pages rather than lost in edit warring – and, when has there ever been a one-sided edit war? Further, if the point is included – as it is and immaturely so in my opinion – it is actually insignificant if the actual quote is not there. --Merbabu (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the new suggestions are OK and I can support with some changes and very good cites. Firstly, it is now too long. Like much of the article, I think word count can be significantly reduced (by half even) without actually removing any points – perhaps by perhaps carefully trimming/removing paraphrasing the quotations which get tiring in any article – say the Clinton and Obama quotes. Although, I agree that “man of steel” can’t really be described using other words - lol. The suggestions also needs further review/work on the wording – for example, “balanced *against*”. Ie, this implies to me "intentionally at the expense of Asia", and care needs to be taken to check that this is actually what was said/meant. Further, it does not mention the US alliance.

More generally, the previous versions of this article, this suggestion, and some editors seem to imply, to varying degrees, that Howard’s “closeness” to Bush and the US was exceptional – even that he was subservient to the US. But was it really exceptional? How would have any other PM acted – including a Labor PM – had they been in power during the “War of Terror”? I suggest what was more to the point is that it was US actions, rather than Australian, that were exceptional. I.e., has any Australian govt not gone along with US military action when requested, or suggested that the Aust-US alliance is not of utmost importance? I might be wrong here but I don’t think so. Keating and Hawke were all avid US supporters, and Rudd seems to be too. The only difference might be that the Howard and Bush seemed to have a “personal friendship”, at least that is what the media seemed to paint. --Merbabu (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Merbabu, I didn't understand what you meant about the Obama incident being "included – as it is and immaturely so in my opinion". You'll have to elaborate. Also you said: "the version there now got thrashed out on talk pages rather than lost in edit warring" - I would disagree. It was arrived at by edit waring, circumventing consensus. Some of the main deletionists refused mediation when offered. Howard's verbal attack on Obama still resonates, it is still headlines in the papers years after the event, and is a political issue for the current opposition under Turnbull. Yet it can't be quoted here.--Lester 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to elaborate. The Obama drama is old news, and is a side-show that you brought back up in relation to the new posts here – that I replied to it above is more than enough time wasting for me. The obama drama is in there. Why do you need quotations too? If you think it needs even more elaboration still, my suggestion is to go and look at the archives. No one is forced to required to have mediation and I fully understand there reason not to. What about the rest of the point at hand apart from the Obama distraction? --Merbabu (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the other points made by user:Observoz. They should all be included. Some were there before but deleted. For example, Howard's stays at Bush's ranch were previously in the article, and fully referenced. It was there prior to the Obama information, but seemed to get deleted during the Obama discussions, as a means to keep Obama out. The Howard/Obama spat is still in the daily news, and regularly discussed by commentators. People wonder what was said.Lester 12:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY! Obama's likely win in the US Elections today will only go to show how conervative and out of touch Howard was with the Public both Australian and International. As this goes towards an historical explanation for his own terrrible loss at the hands of the electorate (that historians in coming years hence will surely cite) THIS ABOVE ALL ELSE SHOULD SURELY GO BACK INTO THE ARTICLE. TO NOT DO SO IS TO CENSOR AND DISTORT HISTORY! 122.148.173.37 (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Add to his Awards

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