Talk:John Howard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Howard article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Contents

[edit] Prime ministership of John Howard

This article has been recreated, and if successful will spread to all PMs. Please improve the page or add comments to it's talk page as you see fit. Timeshift (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree that two articles is a good thing but disagree with the working title. --Brendan [ contribs ] 09:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was being made as a proposal at this stage, but content is already disappearing from the John Howard article and being moved to the Government article.Lester 11:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Howard criticism of Obama

This issue has been the subject of a RfC (Request for comment) and RfM (Request for Mediation), the results of which can be seen at /Archive 11. The result of the RfM was DENIED. --Surturz (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise #7

This is my proposed text:

A particularly notable feature of John Howard's period in office was his close relationship with United States president George W. Bush[98] In May, 2003, Howard made an overnight stay at Bush's Prairie Chapel Ranch in Texas, during which time Bush described him as "a man of steel."[99] The two shared a common ideology on many issues, most visibly in their approach to the "War on Terror".[98] In February 2007, referring to the US presidential contest, Howard claimed that Democratic nomination candidate Barack Obama's stance on the war would encourage terrorism in Iraq.

By removing the paragraph break using "stance on the war" it ties in to the prior sentence (which defines 'the war on terror'), thus getting rid of the parenthetical comment. Howard's comment was an "If I were..." not a direct encouragement for Al Qaeda to pray. How's this? --Surturz (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The MoS nickname is a reference to Superman. Maybe a link should be inserted. (previous unsigned comment by EyeDubya) Eyedubya (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I get the reference, you get the reference, but I wonder if GWB did (lol). Is GWB a reader of comics? --Surturz (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I like it, up to a point. The references can give readers the full story. However, that's three sentences on the significant Bush/Howard relationship and one on the insignificant Obama/Howard tiff. I think Obama is being given far too much WP:WEIGHT when you compare the two relationships directly. Of course, I'm thinking of the real world when I say this. Here in wikispace, things are different and truthiness is what we make it. --Pete (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting way of looking at it. So, if we removed the 25% of the current content (i.e. the line about Howard's comments on Bush's opponents), would we be more or less informed overall about the topic of Howard's relationship with Bush? This kind of content analysis suggests we'd be less informed. Thus, the issue is not the relevance of the material about Howard's comments on Bush's opponents, but whether or not the current text adequately covers the nature of Howard's relationship with Bush in sufficient breadth. Removing 25% won't help us here, because then we only have 75% of a truncated story. Adding 100% more text (another 4 lines) will reduce the 'Obama' quotient to a mere 12.5% - is that sufficient? I can't say myself, but what this analysis suggests very strongly is that the section on John Howard's relationship with George Bush needs additional material. Maybe someone with better (or rather, more concerted) research skills than I could find some sources for, say, some sentences about John Howard's son going to work for George Bush's election campaign team? That'd be worth a line or two (maybe its already buried in the article somewhere, in which case, it needs to move). Perhaps there is room for some quotes from Howard about his views on Bush? In any event, I agree with SkyRing's point that the current offering here is a little limited in its scope and thus the material on Howard's comments about Bush's opponents does assume perhaps slightly greater prominence than it would in a more rounded coverage of this topic. Its not that Howard's assertion that The Democrats are the terrorists party of choice is insignicant, more that its siginificance is hard to understand without additional information about Howard's admiration for Bush.Eyedubya (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not support the inclusion of Obama per this wording. I do not support the remark being added to the Bush relationship. Bush was in power for 7 years of Howard's term. The two were close for that period. A snide remark by Howard with reference to a presidential candidate is indeed an undue weighting. It probably would have had more significance in my mind if Obama had been competing against Bush - but he isn't - he is not an opponent of Bush. --Matilda talk 03:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • But would you tolerate the inclusion of the proposed wording? If not, what would your suggested compromise be? --Surturz (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The relevance of the Obama content has been firmly established by the large volume of references and commentary supplied earlier in this discussion. All the editorials and commentary indicated both the relevance, and the unusualness of Howard's attack, and the significance of an angered presidential candidate by Obama's terse reply. Yes, Obama angrily criticised Howard's Iraq strategy, but that's a policy that has received both criticism and praise. For example, Bush praised Howard as a "man of steel" because of that same Iraq policy. It's a matter of having both sides of the equation. Howard's criticism was significant. The fact that Howard took risks by involving himself in US politics is significant and unprecedented. Obama's angry response is significant. I think a relevant excerpt of Howard's quote needs to be included, as well as Obama's response.-Lester 06:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In answer to Surturz - no I would not tolerate the revised wording. I have no suggested compromise. I supported mediation - I am interested to hear of an alternate process to nut out a compromise. I disagree strongly with Lester that the relevance of the Obama event has been established. I would only be statisfied if it was of such importance that it was similarly included inteh Obama article - ie it was deemed of significancd to his campaign. I can't think it was or is. Nor do I think it is of anything but undue weight and therefore breaching WP:NPOV. Please show me a reliable source where a priminet adherent makes mention of the incident in 2008 and I will change my mind. I don't think Howard's remark was addressed to the US political arena, it was a domestic play (that is my conclusion) and even in the domestic political scheme of things, except on this page, it has no prominence.--Matilda talk 07:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matilda. These links were listed earlier in the discussion, but The Age in March 2008 and The Washington Post in April 2008 carried brief editorial mentions of the event. It shows the issue still has currency, is remembered, and occasionally gets a mention in the press to this day.Lester 07:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
At this point I'd like to remind all concerned of Howard's letter to Indonesia regarding the government of East Timor (here is a useful reference). This is without a doubt a much more significant interference by Howard in the government of another country that actually lead to loss of life and the establishment of a new government. In comparison, the Obama incident looks like very small beer. --Surturz (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) Neither of those mentions is of weight - they are passing opinion pieces. Are you going to suggest that Bush would pass on the "man of steel" moniker to Rudd on the basis of the Washington Post mention? This is trivia and the mentions (no more than that) do not make it any the less trivial. --Matilda talk 07:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I put the links there in response to your remark in the preceding paragraph: "show me a reliable source where a priminet adherent makes mention of the incident in 2008 and I will change my mind." Over a year after the event there is less chance of an indepth commentary, but the sources were major (ie Washington Post etc), and most other aspects about Howard don't keep popping up in recent editorials like those. I think that if we use the criteria of long and indepth commentary, we should then apply that to the entire Howard article, and then go though it deleting all facts that don't have recent commentary of an extensive nature. We apply that to everything, or apply it to none. Regards, Lester 09:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Per WP:RS However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. - the pieces you cited did not meet the criteria for WP:RS--Matilda talk 10:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obama/Howard in today's news

03 June, 2008: Today's editorial in The Age (use your browser to word-search for 'Obama'. I think that fairly and squarely answers critics who say the Obama incident didn't get on-going coverage.-Lester 09:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Another opinion piece and hence again I quote WP:RS However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. Stop using Opinion pieces for citations and find a cite - current that shows this trivial incident still has weight or is of some significance.--Matilda talk 10:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Matilda, I'm not sure I follow your line of argument. A few posts earlier, you asked for a prominent 2008 source that mentions the incident. I think the main editorial in The Age newspaper in Melbourne from this very day (Melbourne's major broadsheet newspaper) is a reliable enough source for the purposes of demonstrating to you that the article still has currency, a year and a half after the incident. Other citations from 2007 were used to reference the facts in the article. Lester 12:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The quote from the Age is The former prime minister, John Howard, has acknowledged frankly that the desire to assure Washington of Australia's loyalty was a key part, if not the whole, of his reason for taking part in the invasion of Iraq, and of Afghanistan before it. Yet, as the Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama once noted in a verbal joust with Mr Howard over policy in Iraq, that pledge of support was made in the most minimal terms. - "verbal joust" - Howard had many verbal jousts and we aren't going to metnion them all are we? This mention has a very different character to the text you are trying to insert. Matilda talk 07:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obama/Howard: Criteria for inclusion

There are some who argue for 'ongoing coverage in the media' as a criterion; There are others who argue that its about symmetry - if its not in the Obama article, then it shouldn't be in the Howard article. If we applied the former consistently for every aspect of every BLP, then all BLPs would be very short. If we applied the latter consistently across all areas of every BLP, then they'd all be ridiculously long. Clearly, neither of these criteria are actually relevant to issues of content in a BLP. The criterion that we're really arguing about is relevance to the substance of any particular BLP - i.e. its purely about content that is notable, verifiable, etc. in relation to each particular BLP. And the criteria for such would be on the basis of content that makes one individual distinguishable from another against the remainder of humanity who are otherwise non-notable. Thus, in this, and every other instance within John Howard's article, the issue is this: "Of what relevance is this piece of content to the distinctive aspects of John Howard's character, personality, modus operandi, style, beliefs, politics, personal philosophy, charisma, success (or for that matter, failure) etc etc." These issues do not have much to do with whether the media is still gossiping about them a year or twenty after the event. Nor do they have much to do with whether or not items that are meaningful in John Howard's life are also mentioned in the BLP of someone else's life with which John Howard's life may be linked in some way. For example, there is a section in the John Howard article titled "Relationship with George Bush". It was previously called "US Relations" or somesuch. There is no such section to mirror this in the article on George W. Bush, nor is there anything within the George Bush article about Howard's visit to Bush's ranch, or the bestowing of the title "Man of Steel". However, no-one has argued that this piece of content should be removed because it is no longer mentioned in the media, nor have they called for its exclusion on the grounds that it lacks the required symmetry. And yet, the piece of text that is immediately adjacent to this very content is the subject of an ongoing call for its exclusion on these grounds. Surely, surely, its time for this canard to be recognised for what it is and can we all please move on!Eyedubya (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Ongoing coverage in the media is not met by mentions in the odd Opinion piece as per my comments above on WP:RS. While symmetry may not be matched on Howard's relationship with Bush I can't think there is any dispute that the relationship was of great significance to Howard. If there is happy to debate that point - separately. There is debate that the relationship with Obama was of any significance to Howard or to Obama. As for If we applied the former consistently for every aspect of every BLP, then all BLPs would be very short - we have a guideline for not raising that debating point - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --Matilda talk 10:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is really about whether or not we need an article on John Howard, not whether or not John Howard's accusations about other politicians are notable enough for inclusion within an article about John Howard. I think you've missed the point. I'm saying that the issue is not one that can be solved by comparison with other articles, either on the basis of similarity or ongoing newsworthiness. I'm saying that this issue, and this kind of issue in relation to BLPs can only be dealt with in the context of whatever it is about a particular person that makes anything they do or say worth including. John Howard has a page because he is a notable politician, not a notable cricket player, or even, a notable cricket commentator. Thus, Howard's many pronouncements on cricket are less notable than his pronouncements on other politicians. Likewise, then pronouncements of cricketers on politicians are not generally notable. While Howard's obsession with cricket and his admiration for Donald Bradman may indeed be worthy of a mention somewhere in Howard's article (and personally, I'd be fine if someone wanted to add that sort of thing in there), it seems less obviously relevant to the kind of things that distinguish Howard as a politician. So, to recap, Howard is a politician, and he is a politician for whom the War on Terror was a matter of his convictions as well as his special relationship with other politicians, notably, George Bush. Thus, when Howard makes assertions about George Bush's political opponents in relation to the War on Terror, it would seem that such assertions are not only noteworthy, but part of what makes Howard who he is politically - and such material is germane to a biographical article about him in the same way that the story about his sleepover at Bush's ranch is important to understanding who Howard is. Eyedubya (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Having reviewed the related posts above, perhaps a way through this one is to move the item about Howard's remarks linking Democrats, Obama and Terrorists in Iraq to a section on the subject of the war on terror, or on the Iraq war. Maybe. Eyedubya (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just to make a point.

Obama to be friend to Australia: Rudd, 5 June 2008 - last three paragraphs:

Last year, former prime minister John Howard said terrorists would be happy if Senator Obama won.
Mr Rudd said that remark had been unfortunate.
"I'm a bit disappointed that my predecessor Mr Howard could have described the great Democratic party as somehow representing the interests of al-Qaeda," he said.

Isn't it funny that for something with such little relevance, it continues to this day to be brought up by the media? Fascinating. Timeshift (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Its called political opposition - listen to Parliament and you will hear constant references to what the other side did while they were in power - for example in today's deabte on Fuel Watch. It is Hansard and therefore a reliable source but thousands of words later it doesn't make government comments about the others anything other than trivial and of a point scoring nature. This is trivial and rather demeaning to Rudd who brought it up. --Matilda talk 04:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You're referring to parliament. I'm referring to a news article. Thankyou, come again. Timeshift (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The link Timeshift provided is from The Sydney Morning Herald. Just for balance, a similar article was also published in the Murdoch press here. It seems that reasoned debate for or against the inclusion or deletion of any information is pointless, as the matter inevitably gets decided by edit waring, which is a completely unacceptable situation. I'm fed up with the censorship that's been going on, and rogue editors who would prefer to fight it out in a deletion war, like dogs over a scrap of meat, than to put it through the proper community process to gain consensus. Lester 04:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In response to Timeshift9's query You're referring to parliament. I'm referring to a news article. Thankyou, come again. Apologies for being a little cryptic. I was suggesting that the matter was merely one of political debate. Political debate can be referenced by various reliable sources - Hansard being obvious but in this case I think the SMH is giving Rudd airplay and I was thereby inferring that the article is no more than if Rudd had spoken in parliament. I can see that the reference is being raised again and again - ie Lester has raised a couple of Opinion pieces before and they weren't quoting Rudd. With Obama having won the nomination for Democrat candidate and Rudd managing successfully to raise it, this trivial issue may not go away. I still think that in the scope of an article it is not important but ... if it isn't going to go away. For a comparable example I recall the debate over remarks Joan Sutherland of a racist nature. These remarks were in a speech she delivered and their inclusion was debated at Talk:Joan Sutherland#Controversy over racist remarks. The thing that gave those remarks a lasting nature was the length of time that they remained as a topic of conversation with Dame Joan - not to her pleasure. Matilda talk 05:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if i'm missing the glaring obviousness but how does this have to do with noteability for this article, where JH as PM labelled Obama, and the US dems, as the terrorist party of choice (and disregarding paraphrasing, they were the exact words), with the media still raising it to this day in the news? Timeshift (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Was it ever proved that Al Qaeda did, in fact, pray for an Obama victory? --Surturz (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with anything. Timeshift (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict and Surturz I find your comment not constructive or even funny) I maintain that this incident is trivial and should not be included. Others feel differently. I have noted a similar debate in another article on a prominent Australian. The controversial remarks were included because of the longevity of reference to them despite their triviality when it came to the subject - ie she was an opera singer and so racism is hardly germane. So perhaps notability is in part established by longevity. What I am still concerned about is whether the longevity is manufactured by the Rudd government (ie the opposition to Howard) or whether it is genuine. --Matilda talk 06:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
An opera singer being racist? Does opera and racism cross paths naturally? No. Does being PM and bagging one of two major parties with your closest ally cross paths naturally? That doesn't even need answering. One is of direct relevance to their job and one isn't. No stars for guessing which is which. Is the opera singer of any great noteability? Does this opera singer hold any authoritative position to speak on said issue? Well here we have the PM of our country (at the time) saying the terrorists pray for an Obama/Dem victory - that is, one of two options of government, in a place where Howard so staunchly calls them our ally. If you cant distinguish the difference, well... Timeshift (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Dame Joan was a prominent Australian - she made those remarks as a prominent Australian and the remarks were read in that context. The context I think for Howard that is as a leader he should not have been commenting on the affairs of another country. What concerns me about this is there are other times he similarly interfered I think - back in the bowels of the talk page which I can't find becuase too many editors are naiggling on about edit warring and tendentious editing instead of adding usefully to the debate.--Matilda talk 07:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You just said it yourself - "Dame Joan was a prominent Australian - she made those remarks as a prominent Australian and the remarks were read in that context. The context I think for Howard that is as a leader he should not have been commenting on the affairs of another country." So Dame Joan has no authority to speak on racism, either through the connection of her job to the issue, or how much she is listened to in the community and what respect she is held in (who is she?). Meanwhile, PM Howard spoke on behalf of the country, and has complete authority to make comments relevant to international relations, and everyone knows who the current and former PM is (being a PM and all) and is, like him or not, as the PM most people will at least hear what he has to say, digest it, and make their own judgement on them, and the issue. Bottom line, the issue is relevant to his job, it is not to hers, he is known by everyone and is gets heard by his supporters and detractors and some inbetween, and as for her i've never heard of her before today, and that would even go for the most famous opera performer because it goes back to the first point that opera and racism have no natural connection. Timeshift (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise (or lack thereof) #8

This is my proposed text:

A particularly notable feature of John Howard's period in office was his close relationship with United States president George W. Bush[98] In May, 2003, Howard made an overnight stay at Bush's Prairie Chapel Ranch in Texas, during which time Bush described him as "a man of steel."[99] The two shared a common ideology on many issues, most visibly in their approach to the "War on Terror".[98] In February 2007, referring to the US presidential contest, Howard claimed that Democratic nomination candidate Barack Obama's stance on the war would encourage terrorism in Iraq.

Yes, this is the same as compromise #7. I will tolerate this version, I believe Skyring will too (provided there is also more content added to dilute it). Reminder: we are setting the bar very low here, we want text that everyone will TOLERATE. Formulating text that everyone is HAPPY with is impossible The last remaining holdout as far as I am aware is User:Matilda, who still insists that the Obama stuff should not be in the article at all. (Quick note - if User:Lester wants the 'Man of Steel' quote removed, I have no problem with that) --Surturz (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • No longer holding out per my evolution of thought elsewhere on this page when thinking about Dame Joan. Injudicious remarks that are brought up more than a year after the event and multiple times are worthy of inclusion. I would prefer that there was a paragraph break. I think the Bush relationship is far more important and deserves a para on its own. I think the Obama remarks could either be read as support for Bush - in which case text needs to be added to convey that and of course supported by a cite as per WP:NOR. Alternatively the Obama incident could be read as Howard's propensity to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries and I think there is some Indonesian examples that can be added too to give these context (again supported by refs).--Matilda talk 04:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Re-structure

While some people are getting very bogged down in the issue of a single incident regarding JH's comments on Obama, no-one seems to be too concerned that the overall structure of this article is terrible - no-wonder it has a POV tag on it - it needs a significant reworking now that JH has been deposed - the way the article is written is only appropriate to someone still in power, and this alone gives it an unacceptable bias towards content that is indeed trivial. Now that HOward has gone, the article needs to be summative and informative about Howard's political positions, his modus operandi, his policies and achievements, the alliances he had etc etc. We don't need a blow by blow account (which this is) anymore. Doing this will help us to determine whether or not incidents such as the Obama comments are actually significant. Without a clear structure for the article, we will waste our time playing games over very small pieces of text within something that is deeply flawed at the structural level. Its a case of not seeing the wood for the trees. I for one have moved on to removing content that seems misplaced or trivial in the post-Howard era. It feels sometimes as if people are fighting over Howards currency as a politician - but he's gone! He's history! The piece needs to be written as a historical work. Eyedubya (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm "so over" all the hysteria and drama being whipped up over what is really a trivial piece of information. I think a few editors (on both "sides") need to take a good look at themselves (and the length of this talk page) and think what is happening - all this energy and keystrokes.
The article should be split into John Howard (the biography) and the Howard Government. This idea already got wide support. This would see the JH article get a lot shorter and focus on specific events that really relate to him - no re-hashes of his govt policies and criticism. The list of tidbits (particularly bad for the oh-so "recentish" 2004-2007 section) should then go into the Howard Govt article, and only some major things from PM-ship should be in the JH biography.
For God's sake, move on. thanks Eyedubya for seeing the bigger picture. --Merbabu (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Eyedubya, exactly the point I was making. The entire thing needs a makeover, and I have academic sources, some in PDF format which I'd be happy to send (one at a time though!) to anyone who wishes to work on the article. Those with academic access may be interested in the June 2007 edition of the Australian Journal of Political Science which devoted its entire issue to analyses of the Howard decade. A lot of the less significant stuff, PARTICULARLY the huge sections relating to the last three years, should probably go, while the periods 1977-83, 85-89 and 95-00 in particular should be expounded on in greater detail. However I do not want this sort of mission to become a partisan scrubbing of the article, which all evidence to date suggests might be a possibility. I would actually like to see a cross-partisan group be able to meet in the middle and decide what should stay and what should go, hopefully to the satisfaction of most (if not absolutely everybody). What do others think of this as a way to proceed? Orderinchaos 12:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If possible, leave the current article and set up a working draft for the re-write. Maybe that's naive, but it seems better than trying to deal with the edit warmongers before moving on. Since you're the one with the sources, you could set this up on your talk page, or something that hangs off it? Eyedubya (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, right at the moment I'm dealing with assignments and exams, until mid next week, and the only reason I'm on here is I'm too sick to get any real work done thanks to the latest bout of the cold. :P I'm happy to help out but the bulk of my work won't be immediate on it. Orderinchaos 13:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Okey dokey, no worries. Whenever you're ready. Eyedubya (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


I think there is emerging agreement that the article needs a restructure now that Howard is out of office. I'm not going to volunteer, but I think a good way to do this is for some brave soul to restructure the article the way they think it should look, but not delete or add any content as part of the restructure, to minimise chances of reversion. The alternative is to try and work out a structure on the talk page, but IMHO that is likely to be derailed for various reasons, and has a high risk of 'forking' i.e. the main article changes while the restructure is being discussed. If one person initiates the restructure, then hopefully we will have a cohesive structure to subsequently modify. If we restructure by committee, we are likely to end up with a mess. --Surturz (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There are at least 2 conversations about this running concurrently. Orderinchaos seems to be in a good position to be the one to run with a major re-structure, given his access to academic sources. Meanwhile, mini-revisions are proceeding anyway. Some minor additions to content are necessary because re-arranging the article around themes sometimes requires additional framing and linking statements. Eyedubya (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I’m also happy with doing a re-structure. I could do this from Monday but not in main space. I will be using the existing materials to start with, and I will confer with Orderinchaos to make sure we don’t go down to different lines. --Merbabu (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lateral thought

While thinking about ways in which to reduce the issue with this article and resolve to some extend the heated debate that have been a significant feature of this article. I thinking that we need to look for ways in which a greater diversity of opinion and events can be covered. Lets consider possible daughter articles;

  1. Prime Minister John Howard -- this article focuses on the period in which he was the Prime minister, including the events before the 1996 election when he became leader of the opposition
  2. John Howard MP -- This focuses on his time as a member of Parliament with two options;
  1. included time as PM
  2. have a subsection with link to a main PM article

What I think is that this will allow broader coverage of the periods and distill his BIO article down to a manageable size with link(s) to theses articles via simple 2 para sections that give the main features, ie dates, ministerial positions, number of election wins. I knoiw that this isnt standard BIO articles and potentially POV forks, but I think the volume of information that could/should be covered warrants the articles. Gnangarra 13:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "Howard government (yyyy-yyyy)" and "John Howard" would be a more useful dichotomy. The "John Howard" article could then become the snappy biographical retrospective it should be and the "Howard government (yyyy-yyyy)" article could be more expansive. --Brendan [ contribs ] 18:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that "Howard government (yyyy-yyyy)" wouldnt be the right direction we already have government articles, what I was looking for was taking periods of JH life into daughter articles Gnangarra 14:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
My view is that an article on the "Howard government (yyyy-yyyy)" would be the one to periodise, whereas the BLP of "John Howard" ought to be organised as a combination of periods and themes relevant to his political persona. Since most of the main themes Howard articulated go back a long way before he became PM, the predominant structure should be thematic, so that the way these ideas were transformed, implemented, frustrated, etc. can be traced. If the article uses the current structure of periodisation it will be nigh-on impossible to follow the threads of Howard's politics and his impact as a politician. If there are especially interesting periods in HOward's life that warrant their own individual articles, then these can be linked from either or both the "Howard government (yyyy-yyyy)" article and "John Howard as necessary. Eyedubya (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at Talk:Kevin_Rudd. My favoured approach is for the chronological structure to be abandoned for John Howard, now that he is out of office. I would like to see the following sections: (moved to following section) I think the current section "environment and energy" should pretty much be removed. He did little about climate change, and his views on nuclear energy didn't really result in anything. --Surturz (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's getting pretty close. I'd say a section on 'never-ever-GST' would be worthwhile, also a section titled something like 'family matters' concerning attitudes towards family taxation, child support changes, antipathy to gay marriage, to name a few. And there should also be a section on 'Howard's culture wars' - closing down of identity debate, dislike of multiculturalism, anti-'elitism' (i.e. anti academics and intellectuals), and of course - 'A Clayton's Republic' - the referendum you have on a republic when you don't want to have a republic. To the IR section needs to be added the waterfront dispute. That'll do for now. Eyedubya (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe I forgot GST - I've added it to the list. Family matters should mainly consist of baby bonus & FHOG - his opinions on the other issues you mention are not relevant anymore now he is out of office (he can't act on those opinions). Republic referendum actually happened, so that warrants inclusion. I've bundled it up with Indigenous affairs and Multiculturalism under 'Nationhood' - not a great fit, but we don't too many top level headings. --Surturz (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
What's FHOG? On the other matters, while he was in power he acted to prevent states and territories legalising gay marriage, so that warrants inclusion. Eyedubya (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
FHOG = First Home Owners Grant --Matilda talk 00:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know he overruled a territory gay marriage law - that does warrant inclusion. He did that with Euthanasia too, so I have added both under the 'Social policy' heading. --Surturz (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the general outline, but since we will have a Howard Govt article, then the list of issues for inclusion is too long. Remember, ultimately the JH article is meant to be much more succinct and focus on few specific items that were mostly linked with Howard. Ie, not the laundry list of ad-hoc and poorly structured complaints and compliments that we currently have. Ie, the main themes - not everything that a very busy man (and govt) did in 1 years.
Each item should be justified - if in doubt, leave it out. --Merbabu (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to an article on the Howard Government but I note it was of course not just one person. We do have already articles on the ministries - eg First Howard Ministry ... Fourth Howard Ministry . These are currently just lists of the ministers and parliamentary secretaries but there is no reason to my mind that they could not include major events during the term of the ministry. It might be a start if you wanted to include information on policies, achievements, events and incidents.--Matilda talk 00:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I've made a few changes to the proposed structure above. --Surturz (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed re-structure

[edit] John Howard BLP (this article)

  • Biography - born, elected, married etc
  • Treasurer
  • Opposition
    • Rivalry with Andrew Peacock
    • The 1987 election
    • "Lazarus with a triple bypass"
  • Prime Minister
    • MAIN ARTICLE: Howard Government
    • Policy development
    • Relationship with George Bush
    • Leadership and retirement doubts - Costello
    • Decline and fall
  • After politics
  • Honours

[edit] Howard Government (working title)

  • Terms
    • each term with start & finish dates, notable events e.g. ministers sacked etc.
  • Social Policy
    • Gun Control
    • Baby bonus
    • First Home owners grant
    • Euthanasia veto
    • Gay marriage veto
  • Economic reform
    • GST
      • Never-ever
    • Industrial Relations - workchoices
  • Nationhood
    • Republic referendum
    • Indigenous affairs - intervention
    • Immigration - Asian immigration comments, Tampa, Children overboard, rhetoric vs. skilled migration increased to record levels
  • Foreign Affairs
    • East Timor
      • Howard's letter
      • InterFET
    • Iraq war
    • US Alliance

The contents however may be a useful starting point:

  1. Overview
  2. Major issues of Presidency
    1. State of the Union Addresses
    2. Major acts as President
    3. Major treaties signed
    4. Major treaties withdrawn
  3. Major legislation
    1. Legislation signed
      1. 2001
      2. 2002 (etc to 2006)
    2. Legislation vetoed
  4. Administration and Cabinet
    1. Advisors and other officials
    2. Supreme Court nominations and appointments
    3. Federal Reserve appointment
  5. First term (2001-2005)
  6. Second term (2005-Present)
  7. Political philosophy
  8. Environmental Record

Obviously a presidency is not the same as leading a government but maybe this sort of topic list would raise it up a little.

There is an article on Premiership of Tony Blair which perhaps is more analogous and I propose Premiership of John Howard as a title. Contents are:

  1. First term 1997 to 2001
    1. Independence for the Bank of England
    2. Domestic politics
    3. Foreign policy
  2. Second term 2001 to 2005
    1. Iraq war
    2. Domestic politics
    3. Health problems
    4. Connaught Square
  3. Third term 2005 to 2007
    1. G8 and EU presidencies
    2. London to host the 2012 Summer Olympics
    3. 2005 London bombings
    4. Education reforms 2006
    5. Local elections on 4 May 2006 and cabinet reshuffle
    6. Darfur
    7. Resignation as Labour Party leader and Prime Minister
    8. Debate over Muslim women wearing veils
    9. Cash for honours
  4. References

I really like this model - can we start discussing at Talk:Premiership of John Howard ? Matilda talk 00:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I have just restored the previously deleted article of Premiership of John Howard. It had been deleted as a prod - self-nom because of lack of community interest. I think that is no longer the case. Matilda talk 00:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Definately lots in there, i'm in support of it. However, i'm sure those who like to censor might not be so willing. But at least the "it's not related to JH directly" line gets tossed straight out the window :-) Timeshift (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of “suppressing information”, “censorship” or “denying facts”.
This is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith. Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion. And in the case of biographies of living individuals it is vitally important always to err on the side of caution. If the information you want to add is self-evidently valid and important to the subject, it should be trivial to provide multiple citations from reliable sources which agree that it is both true and significant. Take this evidence to the Talk page in the first instance. Shot info (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Can't wait for the Premiership of John Howard article! Timeshift (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the article split is a long overdue. I've thought for a long time that putting a detailed description of everything the Howard Government did on JH's page is completely inappropriate. After all, he merely led the government that implemented the policies. The proposed article structure(s) look good to me too. I once considered attempting a rewrite along those lines, but the task seemed too daunting. Good on you for taking it on. I hope this gets, shall we say, "bipartisan support".--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! It will certainly be a fairly major undertaking, but I think we've got the people and expertise here to pull it off. Now that I've finally shaken off the horror of intensive study for another semester I'll see what I can develop once I can get to some libraries and get out the books I need. The academic journals are also a ripe source for material. BTW I added policy development under the biographical article as his many speeches to think tanks and policy forums were actually a big part of the way he projected his vision of Australia - a surprising number of them are available as are articles which place the sentiments within them in context, which can be cited as secondary references. Orderinchaos 12:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Go for it, Order! Good to see the exams are done - now there are no more excuses. --Merbabu (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Immigration under Howard

This is an emotive subject, but despite his rhetoric, immigration actually increased to record levels under Howard. I think it only decreased in his first year in office. I think in a restructure, a section on immigration would be an interesting and useful addition. I've added a line in the lead, I can't find any mention of increase to immigration in the main article, although there is a lot which implies Howard was anti-immigration. The truth is that Howard implied he was anti-immigration, but was actually a quiet supporter of high levels of skilled migration. He wasn't so keen on refugees, of course. --Surturz (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you, so I think you could just go ahead and insert a section under that heading right now with this sort of information in it. If you can find some sources that analyse the relationship between his public persona of being apparently anti-immigration while presiding over a dramatic increase that would be good, since its clear that neither were merely coincidental. Eyedubya (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
During Howard's opposition years, he campaigned against immigration happening under the Family Reunion scheme. During Howard's first years in power, from 1996, immigration decreased as Family Reunion was drastically cut. During the later years of Howard's term, immigration increased again, however the increase was due entirely to business/skilled migration. Business groups had been lobbying hard for an increase in Skilled migration. Family reunion was cut, and in 1997 migration from African nations was also reduced.Lester 06:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you need to distinguish between Howard the person and the Howard Government. Itis not clear to me whether these changes were to do with Howard's views or Ruddock's views or another's views or even Cabinet views - no one person. I donot think the article needs to include immigration unless there is a reliable source to link Howard personally to the topic.--Matilda talk 06:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the difficulty is that there has been a very sensible proposal to split this article into a John Howard bio and one about the Howard Government. This hasn't happened yet, and people are working on material for both within the one article. Eyedubya (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Matilda, with respect, race and immigration was a big issue throughout his career. If his comments on Asian immigration and refugees are worthy of inclusion, surely his actions (increasing skilled migration) is also worthy of inclusion? To say he wouldn't have had a significant role in determining immigration levels given his vocal opinions on the subject is a bit unlikely. Comparing his words and actions is not only NPOV, it also makes for interesting narrative. --Surturz (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes I did indeed mean Ruddock - thanks for the fix. Race and immigration have been big issues for Austrlaia throughout the twentieth century and continue now. My concern is to avoid WP:NOR and its subset WP:SYNTH. Comparison of words and actions, particularly givent he volume of sources seems potentially to fall out of bounds of no original research. Any assertions would need to be linked to Howard the person rather than his Government. I think it would be easier to progress this line of thinking against the government article or even if you wnat to be that specific in a history of the DIMIA portfolio. I am not convinced that comments on Asian immigration and refugees are worthy of inclusion but for me it would help a lot if we were working on two different articles and could then separate out the issues. By way of comparison there are some classic instances in US politics where personal actions were against policy pronouncements. For example the Bernard Kerik employment of an illegal nanny and other ethics problems, also the similar (maybe even more clear cut) case of Zoë Baird. In these cases the appointments to government positions did not go ahead because what they did (or allegedly did) did not match the policy positions they were supposed to support - ie thier words and actions were incompatible.--Matilda talk 04:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
        • They're gone now, but I did provide references to articles by Ross Gittins who noticed the discrepancy between Howard's rhetoric and actions on immigration: one and two. It's not my idea or OR. Does this allay your concerns over WP:SYNTH? I can try to look for some non-journalist references I suppose, but while it is easy to establish 1) Howard used anti-immigration rhetoric and 2) Howard raised skilled immigration as facts, I'm not sure how to go about justifying (or debunking) that the two facts should be linked in the article. Mentioning both and leaving it to the reader to draw conclusions is probably the way. --Surturz (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Gittins uses Howard in this case in the sense other people at other times use Canberra - this is why I think it is important to put in an article on the Howard Government but not in Howard's biography. Although Gittins refers to Howard consistently he doesn't mention Ruddock or Vanstone or their colleagues - it wasn't a one man band. Can I suggest a good place to place some of this info is Immigration history of Australia which really needs some updating.--Matilda talk 05:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Immigration in lead

While I'm sure it's true are immigration levels something that can contribute towards the summation of the person or the Prime Ministership? Something in the lead should not require references to back it up as a fact, it should be already a well established fact taken from the fully referenced body of the article. WikiTownsvillian 13:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both your points: ie, that it seems out of place, and further, it should be referenced in the main article thus making references in the lead redundant. --Merbabu (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think something of his "achievements" should be in the lead, but not gun control. Immigration is only really a biggie because it was such a factor in 2001. I'd say the things which belong in the lead are (in no particular order) these five: GST, industrial relations, getting the budget into surplus, exploitation of Tampa in 2001, and the Iraq war. Peter Ballard (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to inflame things, but the body of the article makes a strong case that he was anti-immigration. Now he certainly was in rhetoric but in fact he increased immigration to record levels. Trying to remove objective fact from the lead smacks of POV-pushing. i.e. I am starting to become suspicious that the lefty editors on this article are trying to portray JH as a racist, which he most certainly was not. RECORD LEVELS of immigration... how can it NOT be in the lead?? --Surturz (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
There were lots of records during Howard's term as prime minister: record spending, record employment, record house prices (and housing unafforability), record executive salaries... what goes in the lead and what doesn't? We've got to look at significance. Apart from the Tampa/Refugees issue, immigration adjustments didn't generate huge news or controversy big enough to be in the half a dozen or so things we can mention in the lead. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
To say that Australian society has not changed massively due to immigration is completely disingenuous. I certainly hope you are not saying that controversy is the criterion for inclusion. Surely facts are more important than rhetoric? Aren't we interested in what Howard did in addition to what he said? --Surturz (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course Australia has changed due to immigration. What I dispute is that there was a seachange under Howard, apart from being meaner/tougher (depending on your POV) to refugees. Yes, controversy is part of the reason for inclusion, because controversy affects newsworthiness. But if you can find substantial references discussing how significant skilled migration was under Howard, I might change my mind. Right now, I'm guessing that when people (including experts) think of immigration under Howard, they think of Tampa and the Pacific solution; and that other immigration under Howard largely followed previous trends and barely deserves a mention, certainly not in the lead. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, we can be clearer about this issue if we don't assume political leanings or biases. For example, opposition to immigration is not an issue that is owned by the 'right', nor is racism confined to the left. Things are way more complicated than that. For example, if a PM knows that many constituents are indeed racists, or perhaps, just fearful of their livelihoods being taken away, but understands that from an economic perspective immigration must be sustained at relatively high levels, what can he do? He has political tools to manage it that may play to the fact that people tend to react more strongly to symbolism rather than demographic data. It seems that this is one interpretation of what Howard did. Empirically, we know he came across as anti-immigration. Equally so, we have the evidence that immigration dramatically increased during his term of office. Furthermore, we have evidence that Howard based much of his rhetoric on a concern for the values of 'ordinary Australians' (aka 'battlers'), while at the same time, he presided over a series of measures that actually made the lives of that constituency significantly less secure due to increases in house prices, lack of planning for less-car dependent cities, less secure IR, inflation, etc - as well as a rhetoric about terrorism and border security designed to instill insecurity. But these are not 'left' or 'right' issues - Labour in the UK did many of the same things. And in the 1990s, the ALP was doing the same as Thatcher in the UK. What's interesting and notable is the combination of political themes/discourse/rhetoric and actual demographic and other outcomes - both are necessary to understand Howard's term in office, neither is sufficient. Eyedubya (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The article also seems to offer no mention of Temporary Protection Visas (TPV) for refugees, or the riots at Immigration Detention Centres or the reduction in refugee intake, and no mention of SIEV-X (except, curiously, in the references). Open up the immigration can of worms and there is are quite a lot of worms in it. Lester 04:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You are free to add these to the main article if you deem them notable; I'm certainly not trying to hide any worms. However, we are talking here about the lead. It seems to me that given how much of a theme immigration was in Howard's ENTIRE career, it would be a shame not to see some mention of it in the lead. Note that not everyone thinks increasing immigration is a good thing, so saying he increased immigration is factual and NPOV. I have already watered it down to "increased immigration" - no mention of 'record immigration' - but we could water it down further to "changed immigration laws" or some equally milquetoast phrase if people strongly object. I agree with Eyedubya that the comparison of Howard's rhetoric and actions on immigration is vital. --Surturz (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • remove indentAs above could I suggest that Immigration history of Australia could really do with a boost - try adding the info there and see how it pans out. I am really concerned about confusion between Howard the person and Howard's government.--Matilda talk 05:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the Howard government's immigration policy was driven entirely by Mr Howard himself, so I'm not sure there is a separation between the person and the policy. Lester 06:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we have found the key point of difference and what I would like to see are some reliable sources which supports your assertion that the Howard government's immigration policy was driven entirely by Mr Howard himself. Cites such as those provded by Surturz where Gittins says Howard this and Howard that do not satisfy me because they are in my view in the same vein as Canberra this or Canberra that - there must be a word for that sort of generalisation but I am not sure what it is. I don't have any Howard biographies ... but I am sure that if it is so you should be able to come up with several absolutely reliable cites which do Ruddock and other DIMIA ministers a great disservice :-) --Matilda talk 06:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
A word for that sort of generalization - Metonymy is or may be the word you are seeking here. Metonymy refers to the use of a single characteristic to identify a more complex entity and... --NewbyG (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I can see your point in terms of a split of this article into two articles (see my changes to the suggest structure above). However, I still think if we quote his views on immigration we must also explain that skilled immigration increased during his tenure. Whether or not he was the driving force, he certainly allowed immigration to increase while he was PM. I'm not going to quibble with words, the thrust is that 1) we quote choice parts of his anti-immigration rhetoric (the asian immigration quote, and the 'circumstances under which they come' quote I suggest) 2) We include a line saying that skilled immigration increased during his government. Whether we link the two and whether it was him that increased immigration or his govt that increased it are minor points IMHO. --Surturz (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a satisfactory compromise, "increased immigration" was simply not a theme of the Howard Government and if it was then there would be a significant amount written about it in this article and elsewhere. This has nothing to do with left or right agendas, the lead has to be a reflection of the article as a whole. Immigration increases is not a defining legacy of the Howard Government, I would even argue gun control is borderline it was significant at the time however it was reactionary and in the context of a national tragedy, whereas the areas that Peter mentions above were long term reforms which were high profile both in public interest and in the Government's promotion. WikiTownsvillian 03:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • On what basis do you assert "increased immigration" was simply not a theme of the Howard Government. Actual immigration numbers are indeed a defining legacy - there were more immigrants than ever before under that Government. See for example [1] and [2] (previously linked to above). Read in particular the first article and considet the facts against any perception you may have of the Howard Government's rhetoric. --Matilda talk 04:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Look, I'm pretty much happy as long as the word 'immigration' appears in the lead. Even something like "Immigration was an important issue while Howard was in government" or something vague like that. My point is that Immigration was an important theme during his whole career, and the topic deserves inclusion in the lead. --Surturz (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV Tag Removal

N.B. There is previous discussion on this topic at /Archive 11 --Surturz (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could those editors that believe that the POV tag should remain please list here their criteria for removal of the tag? --Surturz (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why the fuss about the tag? The article has much bigger issues, structural issues. Better to sort those out and then worry about the tag if it persists once the article has been restructured. Eyedubya (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is ugly and a nuisance. Further, no specific justification for its use, nor specific and workable suggestions for improvement have been provided despite several requests over a few weeks.--Merbabu (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The article suffers serious problems with edit warring and emphasis in all the wrong places, but it's not actually POV. I say remove the tag. Peter Ballard (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:SILENCE I will be removing the POV tag in the next few days unless an editor justifies its inclusion. For a second time, I ask for editors of this article to supply criteria for removal of the POV tag. --Surturz (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is riddled with bias by omission. As Eyedubya stated earlier, the article needs much work. There has been a push to make Howard's image appear very positive in this article, with some editors applying different criteria for the inclusion of information that enhances Howard's image to information that makes him appear less positive. The most recent example is the Barack Obama section, where a sentence that praises Howard as a "Man of Steel" is included, whereas the Obama quote that criticised Howard's Iraq policy is omitted. The question as to whether this is bias, or sensible removal of trivial information, can be answered by whether we apply the same criteria demanded for the negative information as the positive information. For example, are we going to go through the article and remove positive information as being "non-notable" if it doesn't have any recent 2008 mentions in the press? This is the criteria that was applied to the Obama quote, so why not apply that to everything? Another recent example of bias by omission is the information about Howard's achievements in the intro, which was added in the midst of the Obama edit war: "Howard oversaw taxation reform by introducing a Goods and Services Tax, implemented significant gun control, increased immigration and brought in wide ranging industrial relations reforms throughout his 11 years as Prime Minister." While broadly factual, it fails to indicate the light and shade with each one of those points, all of which were controversial at the time. I think this should apply to all political articles, that when we talk about any political policy, some will think it's great, whilst others think it's terrible. Most especially for economic "achievements". Both viewpoints need brief inclusion. Same applies to the other side of politics, eg Kevin Rudd. While we still enter into edit wars to prevent new information from being added, or even properly debated by the editing community, then the article will continue to have a POV problem. Lester 03:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Lester, the sentence in the lead doesn't say anything about whether the measures he brought in were good or bad. The lead should be a summary, and the sentence you refer to seems NPOV to me, I honestly can't see the bias. We can substitute the word 'reform' with 'change' if you think 'reform' is a POV word. What would be most helpful would be a bullet-point list of items you want included or excluded, that if resolved would cause you to agree to remove the POV tag. Can you provide such a list? --Surturz (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Also I think for a BLP on a politician, we don't really need to provide both sides of the argument on political issues. We only really need to include the subject's opinion. In fact, I'd prefer to remove most opinions from the article and concentrate on factual events. What people do while they are in office is more important than what they say. --Surturz (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with that PS. If you want a BLP to only have the subject's opinion on him/herself, read their autobiography, not Wikipedia.
Regarding the lead, I just think immigration per se (and gun control) aren't significant enough for the lead. I've listed above my nominated 5 things to put in the lead. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The trouble with politics is that 'factual events' are always political. For example, its a fact that John Howard said children were thrown overboard. Its a fact that no children were thrown overboard. Its a fact that John Howard said there were WMD in Iraq. Its a fact that there were no WMD found in Iraq. Which 'factual events' will suffice? In such cases as these, both sets of facts must be included to make any sense at all of the facts. If John Howard had said 'no children were thrown overboard', and this was consistent with the facts, then the article would only need John Howard's statements. But what Howard did was to state one thing in the face of the facts. So its not always true that what people do in office is more important than what they say, because much of what politicians do when in office consists of saying things that do things. Eyedubya (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) According with WP:SILENCE I intend to remove the POV tag in the next few days if there are no specific complaints about POV in the article. Please add a one line description of any POV issues you want fixed in the next section. If we only have the Obama issue, I don't think that is enough to justify keeping the POV tag. Many thanks, Surturz (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of specific POV Issues that need to be resolved (dot points only please, place comments above)

Please append here a one line summary of each POV issue you want fixed.

  • Man of Steel and Pray for Obama win quotes



[edit] A suggestion (re:Edit Wars)

I would like all editors to stop using the phrase "Edit War". Wars need to be declared. Henceforth they are to be known as "Edit Police Actions" :-) --Surturz (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Authorized use of edit"? :-) Shot info (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Could we actually not talk about conduct - the conduct to my mind is fine. I propose to refactor this page (probably not til tomorrow) to archive all comments about conduct and let us stick to discussing the article content. Oh and please don't use this page to remind others of how to behave (eg referring to WP:TE do that on the editor's own talk page if you must. ( actually I suggest you don't - just concentrate on the content issues )! --Matilda talk 07:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The conduct issues surrounding this article aren't exactly abated by occasionally sniping at the other side. I think refactoring the sections which don't have any end outcome in sight is a reasonable solution. Orderinchaos 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion sections are being archived ("refactored") less than 12 hours since the last discussion post. I think that's too short. Also, the fragmented pieces of a discussion will be separated in the archive. Lester 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The discussion fragments had nothing to do with the article topic. I don't think the archive is unreadable - points can be found if necessary. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise (and admit I was wrong and apologise) if you can find any item which I have archived this morning that was directly related to the article subject and which had yet to be resolved. Matilda talk 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Guys I was just trying to lighten the mood by making a joke! Conduct at the moment is fine --Surturz (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the previous post (above) that behaviour has been "fine". Recent conduct surrounding this article, and articles related to John Howard's policies, has not been fine at all. To generalise, some editors feel it is fine to resolve content disputes by deleting newly added and referenced content seconds after it was added. This modus operandi has been long been used as an alternative to the standard Wikipedia methods of resolving content disputes, such as taking the advice of Requests for Comment and/or engaging in Requests for Mediation. I'd like to see a pledge by those who use the "quick, repetitive continuous delete" method of dealing with content to not do so in future. In addition, incivility that singles out individual editors for harassment has continued in recent days. It's possible to discuss methods that will improve general behaviour or edit wars without the need for picking on individuals. I'd also like to ask those who have previously engaged in that sort of behaviour to pledge not to do so in future.-Lester 00:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I’d like to request that people chill out, go a bit slower on the talk page just as they need to go slower on the revert button, stop starting new sections, and make their comments short so (no-one reads long responses), and wake up and realise that no-one is going to get their way completely, nor will this thing be “fixed” today.
It gets back to earlier requests to diffuse issues, not escalate. Let’s just chill. --Merbabu (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My intention was to call people to voluntarily agree to end the incivility, wars, etc. But in hindsight, my post was mistaken, in that it had little chance of solving anything. Thanks, Lester 02:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I trust neutral parties like Merbabu, Matilda and others on this one. One point I will make - if you (meaning any party to this debate) see someone you disagree with on a talk page saying something you disagree with, a reply is not always warranted. Easiest approach is to think "if I reply, does this actually add anything?" Sometimes one can develop a need to reply to things one disagrees with for the reason that one thinks they are fallacies that need combatting, and that there is a neutral public out there needing to be convinced and if this comment's potential distorting effect isn't squashed, the other contribution might stand and the debate risks being swung into enemy territory. It often has to be acknowledged that one of two situations has arisen: either any neutral person likely to be swayed by such arguments got bored and went home a week ago, or the opposite comment was so obviously loaded that it would either be ignored or seen for what it was. It's something that when in the heat of battle without the benefit of outside perspective one can become completely unaware of. Note the generalities - I am describing arguments I have myself been involved in in the past (and could even point you to talk pages where myself and then-opposite numbers have acted in thoroughly silly ways a year or more ago), but I'm seeing elements of this false sense of urgency in some of the replies here. The world won't change tomorrow if you don't reply to a comment you don't agree with. Orderinchaos 02:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freezing John Howard

I would still like to make the suggestion that we freeze this article for the forseable future (if not for good) as a possible lasting solution to the edit controversies that will I believe be never ending otherwise. As an ex and retired MP and PM the man can no logner make any serious contribution to Australian Politics and all that should really go in there now is his obit. And please do not edit this comment out as it is a perfectly valid and appropriate comment and suggestion! Reverters and undoers will indeed feel my wrath! Mattjs (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedian model of editing sort of precludes freezing articles - the whole idea is to develop and improve. This article basically came together with no plan at all, which is part of why there's so many problems - it's like building a house without a plan, we've got two garages, no doors, a walled-in bedroom and the roof isn't guaranteed not to fall in. Starting again and thinking "how can we adopt a structured approach to make this work?" seems to me to be a sensible solution. I do agree with you that his contributions to Australian politics are probably mostly history, although in practice you can never rule anything out and other leaders have made their mark in their own way long after their retirement. Orderinchaos 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah? Name an ex-PM who has made a significant "political" contribution after politics? (At least a conservative one with the exception perhaps of say Malcolm Frazer who by all acounts was instead a liberal?) 122.148.173.37 (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The anon account is missing the point - although Mattjs' suggestion is made with the best intentions, no wikipedia article is considered completely finished and thus needs freezing.--Merbabu (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The article is a biography about a person who was for 33 years a politician. I think of Andrew Peacock and John Hewson (while not PMs) as good examples of people with reasonably extensive lives beyond politics. Menzies of course still commanded considerable influence beyond his depature, although chose to exercise it sparingly. Orderinchaos 12:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As per OiC we do not freeze articles - even featured articles - ie those of such a quality where we expect few improvements unless new material comes to light. This article is not of good quality and needs work. We work on it as a community and the process is not always smooth. The article will improve - perhaps slowly ... --Matilda talk 20:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Articles should never be frozen, even though the subject matter may become static, we should always be keeping articles relevant to the readers. That said, I agree that the structure/emphasis of the article should change now he is out of politics. What politicians say is very important while they are in office, because it is an indication of what they might do, and affects people's votes. Once out of office though, what they DID is more important. Although obviously, particularly noteworthy speeches should be included (to my mind, the "circumstances under which they come", "lazarus with a triple bypass" and "never-ever" GST quotes are worthy of inclusion). --Surturz (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Although Surturz and I come from rather different political perspectives, I'd agree with most of the above. Additionally, in foreign contexts (and occasionally in the Australian), sometimes such comments have proved worthy of their own articles. The Lazarus one may well prove to be so, as it ceased to extend to merely one leader in public commentary and came to refer to Beazley as well, and has come into use in literature and academia. Orderinchaos 02:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Apropos of focusing on what politicians 'do' (i.e. using verbs), does this mean that 'Children overboard' (for example) will be described by the verb 'to lie', or will it have to be presented by a combination of verbs 'to say' (for what was said by Howard) and 'to be' (for what occurred between the sinking boat and the ocean)? Eyedubya (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Racism in Australia Tag

The following selection is taken from my talk page:

Hi Rakkar, I just removed the "Racism in Australia" category from the John Howard article, which you have added twice now. That article is a BLP, and including the category implies he is racist. Please leave the category out of the article. --Surturz (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I didn't say he was racist. I included him in a category about racism, as over his years in parliament, he had a lot to say on issues on race and immigration. It could be added to a wide rage of articles without implying that the subject racist, for instance it could apply to anti-racist groups. That is my justification for adding it, what do people think? --rakkar (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

end of copied content

I think it's a silly catgeory to have. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I can understand why some may baulk at this proposal, but I think it has merit. Anyone researching the topic of racism in Australia would do well to cover certain incidents that have widely been reported as examples of Racism where John Howard has intervened to claim the reverse, such as Pauline Hanson's maiden speech, or the 2005 Cronulla riots. Or where Howard has had to defend himself against charges of racism, such as his remarks about levels of Asian Immigration, his rhetoric about the 10-Point Plan, or the Northern Territory Intervention, the latter requiring the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. In a multi-racial, multi-cultural country such as Australia, high-profile politicians are inevitably going to be faced with issues related to racism and how they handle it impacts on the ways those issues play out. The tag doesn't state or imply that Howard is a racist, but one would have to be blind to not see that Howard is deeply implicated in the politics of race in Australia, and that his views and policies have been regarded by some as either racist, or giving succour to racists. The NPOV line here is to allow people searching for pages that are related to the category of 'Racism in Australia' to see this page so that they can form their own views, not to be so protective of Howard's reputation to make WP difficult to use by burying relevant articles. Eyedubya (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In that case, you need to put the tag on the article of just about every major Australian politician. That's why it's a silly tag. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec - again)Not at all. THat's not what categories are for. Sorry, but the implication is very strong indeed that the intent is that Howard is a racist. --Merbabu (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah and don't forget the tags for "workers' rights in Australia", "environmentalism in Australia", "gun control in Australia", "immigration in Australia", "taxation in Australia", "land rights in Australia", "elections in Australia", "repblicanism in Australia" etc etc etc. Any category like this is silly, and so vague to define that it goes against the purpose of categories. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Rather than speculating, why not suck it and see? Only certain high profile pollies will really deserve tags such as these, and it'd be good to see how things shape up. And to respond to Merbabu - its not that anyone here may intend that Howard is a racist, its more to the point that many have claimed that he is, or some of his policies were racist, and that in itself warrants a tag. Its not up to editors on WP to decide whether or not someone is or is not a racist, much as it may tarnish the image of a figure whom we admire, or not as the case may be. All we can do is present information that's reliable and verifiable for others to draw their own conclusions from. Eyedubya (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Categories are little bits of text that are situated at the end of an article. They don't affect the readability, or the length, of an article to any great degree. Their great advantage is linking concepts together across wikipedia.--rakkar (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Anyone read this book? Is 'Racism in Australia' the only tag like that could be used, or are there similar tags, like maybe 'Race issues in Australia' or something like that? Malcolm Fraser was responsible for allowing more Asian people to come here than any other prime ministers, but you wouldn't call that racism. Then again, Howard did make those statements in 1988 about reducing Asian immigration. Lester 09:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories are for something specific, tangible, neutral, verifiable, and unarguable. A "Racism in Australia" category here would be clearly the opposite - general, vague, bias, unverifiable, and highly contentious. Thus, I'm surprised Eyedubya seems to be supporting it. --Merbabu (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

PS, as for the justification that he's been called a racist, why not put him (and other prominent leaders) under the category "War Crimininals". He has been called a war criminal afterall. --Merbabu (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A read of Wikipedia:Categorization makes it pretty plain, in my opinion, that "Racism in Australia" is not a suitable topic for a WP category. In particular point 7 ("Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article"), and point 9 ("Generally, the relationship between an article and its categories should be definable as "(Article) is (category)": John Goodman is an American actor, Copenhagen is a city in Denmark, Jane Austen is an English writer, etc. Do not apply categories whose relationship to the topic is definable only as "(Article) is a subject related to (category)"). Peter Ballard (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not tolerate the tag under any circumstances and will do everything I can to prevent it being attached to this article. It is obviously libellous and I find it very disappointing that (left wing but) otherwise sensible editors of this article are even contemplating it. If you want to attach a category to highlight Howard's comments on ethnic issues, then something like "Multiculturalism in Australia" would be an acceptable compromise. --Surturz (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

But Surturz, we don't have Multiculturalism in Australia anymore, Howard got rid of it![3] Jokes aside, would anyone object to "Multiculturalism in Australia"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakkar (talk • contribs) 11:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I object to it, but I will tolerate it if there is consensus for its inclusion. I think categories such as those should contain articles on events, acts of parliament etc, not people. JH was Prime Minister of the country and his article could be tagged with almost any political subject. --Surturz (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I won't agree to a Multiculturalism tag for the same reason I won't to a Racism tag: ie, rather than the required specific, tangible, neutral, verifiable, and unarguable, it is general, vague, bias, unverifiable, and highly contentious.
I agree with Peter Ballard's explanation of category use. ie, John Howard is a racist/multiculturalist just doesn't work. --Merbabu (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Quote from user:Surturz: "left wing but otherwise sensible editors". That's amusing  :) --Lester 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I object to "Multiculturalism in Australia" for the same reason I object to "Racism in Australia" above at 10:50 - it is a misuse of categories as outlined in Wikipedia:Categorization. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of racism specific tags for a Bio and in particular WP:BLP require a significant reason to include them such as someone like Jack van Tongeren, otherwise their inclusion is against WP:NPOV. The category is valid in terms of Jack, and Cronulla riots, to some extent Pauline and the One Nation Party do fall with in a broader definition. WP:OC#OPINION says Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions...however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic Gnangarra 12:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If the WP policy test for categories is to insert 'is' between the article and the category to see if they make sense, then clearly, it makes no sense to categorise John Howard's BLP under 'Multiculturalism in Australia' IF you read this as necessarily meaning 'John Howard IS a multiculturalist'. John Howard himself has said he is not a multiculturalist, and his actions certainly (for once) show his words to have some correspondence to reality. But the category proposed is not 'Multiculturalists in Australia', it is about the issue of multiculturalism in Australia, and as a category distinguishes articles coming within its purview from such categories as 'Multiculturalism in Canada' or 'Multiculturalism in Singapore'. It also distinguishes a set of articles from other sets of articles on topics such as 'Assimilationism in Australia', 'Nationalism in Australia', 'Federalism in Australia', 'Ethnic relations in Australia', 'National Identity in Australia', etc. though because the topics are related, there will be many articles in common between such sets. And the same would be true for the set of articles under the category 'Racism in Australia'. Under this rubric, the link between the category and the article is of the form 'Topic' IS of significant relevance to 'Article'. In John Howard's case, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist is a good test. We might look for any number of instances of his opinions about race, racism and race relations in Australia and then look at what he actually has done (as perhaps the most powerful 'activist' in the country) in relation to these opinions. In doing so, we would also be looking for reliable, verifiable sources in relation to documentation and commentary about the significance of the relationship between Howard's words, actions and issues of race, racism and race relations in Australia. As has been shown above precisely these issue have been the subject of whole books. Others could no doubt be cited. So the evidence is there. But I hear the sound of drums and the chant 'those are all biased! No-one with a Neutral Point of View would write books like that!' - so, indeed, the only way to make such entries NPOV is for editors to seek out the alternative evidence from similarly reliable, verifiable sources to set alongside the other claims. Methinks those who are so against a tag of this kind (and I'm not proposing it has to be 'Racism in Australia' - others will do, such as 'Race relations in Australia' or 'Multiculturalism in Australia') protest too much: The issue is not whether or not John Howard IS or IS NOT a racist - we have no way of knowing what is in his heart, and to re-iterate, its not the place of WP editors to decide what is or is not in anyone's heart. All we can do is document what has been said, written and enacted in relation to the subjects about which we write. Eyedubya (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Categorization: Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article --Merbabu (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)