|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to .If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated B-class)|
|WikiProject Australia||(Rated Start-class)|
The Ingrid Tall anecdote is probably true, but it's out of place as the *only* thing we've got to say about Hyacinth. --Robert Merkel 03:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- "working class"/"wealthy" suburbs - what's the subtext here? is it significant that they've sent their kids to private schools?
- "widely claimed" by who? WP:CITE!
- "Demonstrating her conservatism"... "highly unusual"... "generally believed"... WP:NPOV
- The final section is so POV! I don't think any of those 3 quotes belong, and only maybe a one line summary of Ramsey's argument.
Please discuss. In a couple of days I will do some major revision if these things are not addressed (and by that I mean edited, or if someone can convince me otherwise here on the Talk page in the meantime). I think a shorter, more encyclopaedic article is of more worth than a longer, POV-laden one. pfctdayelise 16:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- I have deleted the unsourced anecdote about Ingrid Tall.
- I think the references to the Howards' class backgrounds and the education of their children are relevant in an article about politicians.
- The quotations are clearly the opinions of named people and are thus not POV.
- The Ramsey quote is illustrative of the hostility that Janette H arouses on the left. You are welcome to include a "balancing" quote about what a nice lady she is, but I couldn't find one.
Adam 00:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with point 2 - in an article about politicans. Politicians are fair game, they put themselves up for election. Their families just get dragged along, however. Janette is not a politician. Maybe this comment would be relevant in a 'personal life' section on John Howard, but even then I would have my doubts. maybe a section on his views.
- I agree that the quotes are sourced opinions and justifiable POV themselves, but what I think is unacceptable POV is their inclusion. The second-hand quote from some neighbour's mother's uncle's dog about Janette - Ramsey's quoting it doesn't merit our including it. (I'm still thinking about how the last few paragraphs could be better rewritten.)
- Here are a few links that we might be able to incorporate:
- * ABC 'AM' transcript about the Glenn Milne thing
- * SMH article about pollies & their spouses living apart. nice picture(probably unusable), possible quotes
- * I remember seeing a piece on her in the Women's Weekly a few months ago. Unfortunately it doesn't appear online, but there's a quote from it about her view on the role of the PM's wife
- * should probably mention she is the patron of the National Portrait Gallery
- pfctdayelise 10:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I think she is a politician - by all accounts she is most politically opinionated and influential PM's wife in recent times. I didn't set out to find hostile quotations by the way - I googled Janette and that's what I turned up. The virtue of Ramsey is that he often says what a lot of people think but don't feel it's polite to say. Feel free to make some edits and then we can discuss them. Adam 10:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Quite. It is very widely believed amongst the commentariat that she is a *major* influence and source of political advice for her husband. --Robert Merkel 11:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Which is not to deny that Ramsey and co are full of bile about her because they hate Howard so much. The solution to this is not to delete the Ramsey quote but to find one which balances it. Someone must have said something nice about her. Adam 11:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
So...Shall we "discuss"? You may notice that I added several pieces of new information (in addition to removing several, yes), and I wonder on what basis they deserved reversion. pfctdayelise 23:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
When I said "make some edits" I did not mean "remove all statements and comments critical of Janette Howard so as to make the article more favourable to her." If you do that, I will revert you. If you add new information, I won't. Adam 00:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Things I outright removed: "working class suburb" - info about father's job - info about their children's school - Bennelong becoming less Liberal - second quote from Ramsey article
- Things I added: patron info - Glenn Milne/Peter Hollingworth incident - Janette quote on what she sees as her role
- Things I adapted: influence over the PM - minor wording/linking in breast cancer paragraph - Ramsey & Everingham criticism (added links to sources, removed direct quotes but paraphrased criticism)
- I didn't remove ALL statements critical of her, I even added a criticism. The Ramsey quote definitely needs a link, because IMO at the moment it's pretty out of context. I didn't make any edits that I didn't indicate I was thinking about on this page earlier, but you declined to hash them out with me. Then I make the said edits and you revert them without any discussion. Feel free to tell me if I'm going about this the wrong way. pfctdayelise 00:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
What is the problem?
- In 1999 a journalist alleged that Howard had intervened with the Prime Minister concerning an appointment to the board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Howard issued a rare public statement denying the allegation as "not only wrong but deeply offensive to me."
Is it supposed to be wrong for the Prime Minister to be influenced by his wife? Personally, I would jolly well expect him to be influenced by her. Unless there is an allegation of corruption, the implied criticism seems to me to be spurious and therefore including it in the article is rather POV. Chicheley 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Should elements of this article be incorporated into the last part of this wiki??
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20484517-2,00.html Kayno 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Yes Jeffklib 03:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yee Gods, is that the best Photo that can be found. I know she is a private person, but we deserve a better image than this one.
Stays out of politics?
To the IP user who keeps adding the apparently quite amusing anecdote about the alleged opinions of the Prime Ministerial staff, find yourself a source, and then we can discuss whether or not this belongs in a biography of a living person. Until then, it's considered vandalism and will be removed immediately. Cheers, --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You might be right Yeti Hunter but I think what has been achieved is to put the humerous anecdote into the history trail, where it can be seen by anyone who looks at editing history. That cannot be erased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahdax (talk • contribs) 02:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)