Talk:John Howard/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Kevin Rudd says sorry

I rarely add material to an article, or even copyedit. But in this case I've made an exception, after a couple of months to consider the wording. Rudd's apology should be seen in the context of the events of Howard's second term, rather than as a little piece of Rudd-boosting in the middle of Howard's article, as some may prefer. --Pete (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this. The fact that Rudd's apology received bipartisan (if grudging) support is significant, and useful for a student of John Howard's career and impact. Far more significant than four ex-PMs attending. For these old codgers, a chance to get out and get some media attention and a good feed is probably a bigger factor than any political message. --Pete (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Although you haven't specifically written it here, this seems to be your reasoning for removing the fact that John Howard was the only living PM not to attend. This was considered a significant aspect of the day and after your three removals, has been reinserted not just by myself in the last few days. You need to get consensus to remove it, ie - convince others of its merits. --Merbabu (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you address the point I specifically mentioned, please? Rather than restating your own opinions, already familiar territory here. --Pete (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Pete, saying "rather than restating your own opinions, already familiar territory here." is kind of uncivil - making it very hard to contribute, indeed "already familiar territory here". In fact, it hinders your own efforts to get people on side - snarky comments on your likely completely misjudged perception of people's biases do nothing to influence people (which I think is what you want), rather it only entrenches positions. (not to mention that the reverse could be easily have said of you, but wasn't). Accusing people of bad faith is no way to convince them of the merits of your position.
As for the far more important content issue at hand, I think my comments are perfectly relevant - I'm discussing your removal of that fact that Howard did not attend (which is what your activity here and in the article is about, right?). Yes, it was covered in the media, and it was certainly discussed, and is thus significant. I don't think it is up to us to dismiss it as insignificant.
A more basic point, one needs to get consensus to change the status quo. --Merbabu (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I offended you, but when you do nothing more than repeat your previously expressed opinions, it's not helpful. Could you respond to these two points:
  1. Bipartisan support for Rudd's apology was significant. Four ex-PMs showing up for a free feed and media attention is not.
  2. The media making a story, especially something as confected as "the only living ex-PM not to attend", does not make it encyclopaedic. Or significant. Remember Rudd's earwax-eating incident? Wide media coverage? Yes? Significant? No.
Could you respond to these specific points, please? --Pete (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Not offended, more frustrated at what might have been less than ideal collaborative conditions (not that I'm pretending to be consistently angelic or prone to an odd slip up). :-)
I'm going to give it some more thought in the next day or so - but, I still can't really see why it isn't significant enough for a mention - ie, it reflects on the article subject's longstanding and steadfastly held (some might say stubborn) position on the issue. And it is a major national political issue, and I don't think it compares to a bloke picking his ear (even if he was to become PM). I think saying it was about a few blokes looking for a feed trivialises the issue, and (intentionally?) misses the point. --Merbabu (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
PS, your reasons for removal are based on what I see as an incorrect interpretation of the events and I disagree. Ultimately though there are more important things for me to spend my time on, and I could be prepared to let it go. Let's just wait a few days and see if any clear direction comes out either way from other editors. --Merbabu (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Howard was the only living former PM not to attend. It is significant despite your beliefs otherwise. Timeshift (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My beliefs don't matter. The event (Rudd's apology) was significant. The bipartisan support was significant. Howard's absence was significant in the context of this biographical article. Mind you, it is not unknown for an ex-PM to remove himself from public gaze for a period after an election loss, so one shouldn't read too much into it. Keating certainly didn't attend the opening of Parliament in 1996 and he was barely visible for years after, popping up to make a speech now and then, but for the first six months, he was invisible man.
Howard's absence tells us a little bit about John Howard, and it is fine in this biographical article, but think it through for the other ex-PMs. Do we learn anything about John Howard from the attendance of Whitlam, Fraser etc.? We do not. If one of these chaps (and they are getting on a bit) had been suffering from a lurgy and not felt up to attending on the day, then Howard would not have been the only living ex-PM to attend. But would Howard's behaviour have been the slightest bit different? It would not. It was Rudd's apology he presumably cared about, not whether Fraser turned up for a feed or not. Howard was going to stay away, no matter how many old politicans came for the day. So we don't learn anything about Howard, who is the subject of this biographical article, by saying he was the only ex-PM not to attend. People coming to this article for information get this little bit of irrelevant nonsense, a little bit of confected colour. So I have to chuckle when people say it is significant, and I smile when they stamp their feet and declare it is significant. Historic even. It's not. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia, something useful, not a load of twaddle and opinion.
Though of course, if enough people stamp their feet and dig their heels in, I'll roll my eyes. --Pete (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's seriously listening to you anymore Pete. I know i'm not. Timeshift (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As evidenced by that response. Right. Look, it might be a novel idea, guys, but could we keep the talk page for talk about the article? --Pete (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
We're past that. It's occurred forever and a day without any concession. You remain on your pedestal of not thinking its noteworthy, while everyone else stands over here and laughs at you. Timeshift (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an old saw. Given that SkyRing was taken to task over it (and other similarly tendentious editing practices) here, its surprising that in his absence he's not been able to move on. To re-iterate for the umpteenth time, It would be un-encyclopedic to mention that Howard declined to attend without any context to indicate the significance of his non-attendance. The fact that he was the only living ex-PM not to attend is what makes it significant, and therefore notable, and thus, encyclopedic. Please can we all move on now? Eyedubya (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The point about Howard being the only living PM not to attend provides the context and notability for his non-attendance, and should be retained for this reason. The line about bipartisan support is a different issue, and should be retained if it is true. However, can we say it was bipartisan support, considering some MPs (eg Wilson Tuckey) walked out of the event in protest? Lester 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well Nelson provided in-principle bi-partisan support on behalf of the parliamentary Liberal Party. What this means in terms of true bipartisanship i'll leave up to you. But the official, RS line is that it was bi-partisan. Feel free to qualify the statement after, eg half a dozen Liberal MPs not attending etc. Timeshift (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Unless one’s world view is extremist or fundamentalist, rarely is anything absolute, and this needs to be reflected in wikipedia. Indeed support of the apology was not unanimous, but I suggest Skyring’s point is that there was a very high degree of bi-partisanship. I think we’d all agree on that, right? --Merbabu (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
the level of bi-partisanship or otherwise is a matter for the article on the apology, not John Howard's article. That it was bi-partisan to a degree is sufficient mention in JH. Eyedubya (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

Any reason why Lynton Crosby gains no mention in body text? Is it the same reason Bush and Kyoto also gain no mention in the body text? Timeshift (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Some have stopped editing this page because they know the page constantly gets a working over by Howardites. The article contains no information on some issues whilst expanding almost too much on other issues, and their viewpoints. I have tagged the page with a POV tag. Timeshift (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The article certainly has the flaws you mention, but I don't think it has systematic POV bias so I the tag should be removed IMHO. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there are Howardite editors systematically manipulating and working over the article. Is that non systematic POV? Timeshift (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
But there are also editors on the other side, so it balances out. Scanning the article I can see one or two things that I never noticed before - a glowing reference to his time as treasurer, and an attempt to shift the blame on mandatory detention onto Keating (ignoring the fact that Howard made it much more draconian). The non-mention of Crosby, Bush and Kyoto (sounds like a band) is easily fixed without a POV tag, no? But there's lots of negative too (much more proportionally than the Kevin Rudd article I would suggest). So I won't object to the POV tag for the moment, if specific things are identified and fixed quickly. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
These editors on the other side you speak of (centrist moderates or left) are over time reedited and/or shut down by the pro editors, just go through the talk archives. Some have stopped editing this page because they know the page constantly gets a working over by Howardites. The way the article is structured makes it hard to add things. Where would you add Crosby to? It needs a top down edit IMHO. The negatives you mention are phrased in apologetic tones. Rudd's negatives can't be expected to be that much only several months in to the job, and his territory legislative sovereignty backflip is an issue on that page which I continue to advocate keeping despite unnamed persons objections. If something of substance (ie: nn earwax) isn't raised, by all means please bring it up or add it. This doesn't however mean we take the Bolt or Akerman shockjock cynic rating-grabbing (loud minority) view though (on his or any page). Timeshift (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there are Howardite editors systematically manipulating and working over the article. Bizarre. Do you have any diffs? I very rarely add to political articles, but I'm always keen to move extreme views back to NPOV. Perhaps you think this article should totally toe the line of the Socialist Workers Weekly and anybody who protests is a card-carrying Liberal? --Pete (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, I will not be responding to Pete's un-WP:CIVIL baiting, strawman, incorrect views in this discussion. Timeshift (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, since you've made the claim of "constantly gets a working over by Howardites", you should be able to provide proof. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The proof is in the pudding. Its a process over time of death by 1000 cuts. Timeshift (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Meh, familar refrain and ironic coming from Timeshift and the party he supports. Simply put, rather than engaging in ad-hom attacks, stick to discussing the article. Shot info (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Glory statements about Howard economics were added here, and critical statements about Howard economics were deleted here. Lester 04:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
And the relevance to ad-hom attacks on editors is appropriate? I'm glad you agree with me Lester that we need to focus on the contribution, rather than make shabby comments about the contributor. Shot info (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Timeshift made a general statement that he thinks the article has been written by "Howardites". As thousands of editors have been involved in writing this article, I don't believe anyone should be offended or think it refers to them. For that reason, people should refrain from specific attacks on user:Timeshift. Thanks, Lester 06:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You probably should look at a little closer at the ad-hom attacks made against another editor by Timeshift above then. Thanks for agreeing that we need to focus on the contribution rather than the thousands of editors who have edited here. Of course if you feel that we should focus on the background of editors, then please turn off your AGF and disengage the WP:HONESTY drive. Shot info (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"attacks made against another editor by Timeshift" whatever. WP:Why WP:are WP:these WP:discussions WP:always WP:so WP:pointless... Timeshift (talk)
O...the irony... Shot info (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

... Both of these relate to Howard paying off government debt. But this topic has seen editing from both sides, with the current paragraph in the article on this topic reading as follows:

In April 2006, the government announced it had completely paid off the last of $96 billion of Commonwealth net debt inherited when it came to power in 1996.[62] Economists generally welcomed the news, while cautioning that some level of debt was not necessarily bad, and that some of the debt had been transferred to the private sector.[63][verification needed] Howard often cited the economic management of his government as a point in its favour, but came under heavy criticism toward the end of 2007 in the lead up to the Federal election. It was alleged by opposition leader Kevin Rudd during their single leadership debate that Howard had no plan to deal with inflationary pressures on the economy, and would not be able to handle future interest rate rises.

Not perfect, but seems pretty balanced to me, even a little anti-Howard. So I still see no reason for the POV tag. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Whenever there is economic commentary, there is always an opposite view. We now have Rudd's criticism in there, but you'd expect Rudd to criticise it, so it's not really a neutral source (though still may be relevant). Paul Kelly's criticism was deleted, unfortunately. Regarding Kyoto, I just put it in.Lester 05:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Way forward

POV tags are a lousy first port of call for a POV dispute - they are often interpreted as bad faith, even if it wasn't Timeshift's intent.

Be that as it may, what specifically, measurably and realistically does Timeshift propose needs to be done to move on? No tag should be placed if these three criteria cannot be addressed by the placer.--Merbabu (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lester had the idea with his edits, but IMHO it needs a top-down neutrality workover covering issues like Kyoto, like Bush, like Crosby and Textor. I don't have the motivation myself for this but it doesn't change that I and others have generally steered away from editing this article. Timeshift (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I wonder who these mysterious "others" are? Shot info (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow - one starts a new section to make a clean start from the bickering, and there's no change. Personally, I'd like to see anyone without anything constructive and specific to say about the article to find someone where else to bicker. It's annoying enough that we have a POV with no workable solution. --Merbabu (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Groan, I was going to say I will remove this tag in a week without any practical, achievable and measurable solution provided by the tagger who "doesn't have the motivation" to address. A blanket POV tag is a very serious step, looks really stupid, and there is an onus on the person slapping it on to play a part in fixing it. I see they have been particularly busy on wikipedia since. Now I see a similar tag has been placed on Paul Keating. Pathetic - no doubt retaliatory, steeped in ongoing personal gripes, and based along well-known political persuasions. Part of "consensus"? --Merbabu (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

PS, hmmm - seems like the tag was replaced after being removed a week ago. Before that, it had been there a long time. Sorry for getting that wrong. Still, they are a lousy tool in my opinion. --Merbabu (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
At least they alert the reader to take things with a grain of salt. --Pete (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion (that's been made before)

There was not so long ago a suggestion to split this article into two:

  • John Howard Govt (or better worded equivalent) - a new article that deals with the business and policies, etc of the 1996-2008 govt. Much of this current John Howard article would fall into that.
  • John Howard - a more biographical article that deals directly with John Howard and loses much of the Howard Govt content discussed above. This article would become much shorter than it is now.

There was discussion over this and broad agreement across editors with varying political biases. I will now find the old discussion that had a few suggestions for content. ---Merbabu (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

PS, I found one of two recent discussions on this. Here. --Merbabu (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would this be necessary/desirable? A BLP for a political figure is naturally comprised of information about political circumstances and events in that figure's life. I'm not clear what is to be gained by segregating the most notable aspects of a person's life from their BLP. --Brendan [ contribs ] 09:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Who says we would "segregate the most notable aspects of his life"? Rather, we would move items that can be attributable to the government as a whole, while still mentioning those that are directly related to Howard personally. Eg, Leadership struggles, gun control, Federal treasurer, 1980s squabbles, etc.
Do we really need all this under Howard (two paragraphs in the current article) - or is this Howard's govt:
The new Senate came into effect on 1 July 2005, giving the Howard government control of both houses for the first time. Not since Fraser had a government been able to pass legislation without approval from other parties. However, due to the slenderness of its Senate majority, internal Coalition discipline and dissent significantly influenced legislative outcomes on certain issues.
The Howard government revisited and secured the passage of previously blocked legislation, including industrial relations changes, the abolition of compulsory university student union fees and liberalisation of media ownership laws (by lowering restrictions on media companies owning multiple different media). It also instructed the Governor-General to disallow a legislation, the ACT Civil Unions Act.[58]
By the way, did you read the linked previous discussion? --Merbabu (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I just added Bush + 2 references to go with it. Lester 12:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Merbabu, I see your point and acknowledge that having two well-written articles would not necessarily mean segregating notable aspects from the subject's BLP (although I do forsee numerous vigorous discussions about whether something belongs in the BLP or it's counterpart, but we have those sort of debates now just about BLP content, so that's nothing new or unusual). In terms of nomenclature, it has become de rigeur in Australia to refer to the federal government of the day by its leader (eg. Howard government, Keating government, etc) so I would support article titles along the lines of 'Howard government (1996-2007)'. The dative reference will ensure uniqueness of the title and the article lead can clarify the context (being that of an era of succesive Australian federal governments under a particular leader). I'm not a fan of the 'Premiership of X' nomenclature as used for British PMs as that's just not our lingo and places undue emphasis on the individual incumbent rather than the government as a whole. It shouldn't necessarily require us to apply this retrospectively to all Australian governments since Federation, except on an as-needs basis where substantial content becomes available to warrant a separate article or where disputes over BLP content frequently arise. --Brendan [ contribs ] 07:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama

How is this relevant? It is of no consequence. This is a biographical article covering a 30+ year political career - not an indiscriminate list of every little spat Howard was involved in. --Merbabu (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Merbabu. Howard's relationship with Bush was added after the request of other editors, which included Bush's praise of Howard. It was therefore also relevant to also include the spat (as you call it) between Howard and Obama. It's relevant because it involves someone who is one of the world's most famous politicians, someone who has a reasonably high chance of becoming President of the United States, and the issue also gained widespread coverage in international media, including United States media. The reason Howard got widespread US attention over this was because of the incredibly strong wording. He didn't just say "I don't like Obama's policies". He linked the presidential candidate with terrorists, which was the extraordinary element. Thanks, Lester 23:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, in other words, yes every little spat is to be included? - the fact that it has ongoing international ramifications (or lack thereof) of course attests to it's notability outside of the normal media cycle. But we all know this - which is why Rudd's enjoyment of his ear wax is a similar example of "information" that was correctly excluded from an encyclopedic article (and probably received far greater media coverage in the US than Howard's comments). But we all know this, yet here we are. Shot info (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Lester inserted this at the time and it was removed due to lack of concensus. I can't see any increased relevance now. Nor, with Howard gone, is the incident likely to have any renewed significance. --Pete (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
What! Lester including something against consensus without discussing it first on the talkpage....no, he would never do that!!!!! Shot info (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
My memory may be faulty on this. Researching it now, but it looks like the first instance was by another account. In any case, it wasn't deemed worthy of inclusion at the time and it is even less so now. --Pete (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yet another discussion ruined by incivility and personal attacks. Completely unprovoked.Lester 00:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this another case of Pete forcing his way, yet again? Just remember Pete, there is no consensus to remove it, and is not needed to add it. Timeshift (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2)Thanks Lester. Although sometimes I don’t agree with you (although sometimes I do), I appreciate that your replies to me are civil – indeed courteous – and from memory never snarky in a manner that stifles good will and collaboration. This is particularly important on controversial topics.
As for the content, while I agree that a mention of some description of Bush and Howard’s relationship is important – it was enduring, of consequence, and lauded by the two characters themselves – I certainly don’t agree that this Obama “incident” is notable for this article, which is a huge topic. Howard was an incumbent PM, Obama was (and is) a good chance candidate for the American Presidency, and now Howard is no longer there. Of what consequence was the “spat”? None as far as I can tell – whereas, Bush and Howard’s relationship was of consequence. If it notable, then we are opening a Pandora’s box of numerous events that until now have not been included. Ie, the article could grow many times over and would be even more listy than it is now. I would, however, hypothetically support it’s inclusion in an article titled Timeline of the Howard Government.
Regards --Merbabu (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you watch Australian media Merbabu? It's still an issue being raised. Never before has a PM been as partisan (or wrong) as to say one of the major parties is the preferred party of choice by terrorists. This goes directly against what Howard portrays as promoting - a rock solid relationship with the US government. Timeshift (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Timeshift, I haven’t seen it in the media of late, I presume by your word choice you are referring to TV – nor have I seen it overwhelmingly in the print or other media. Even if evidence of continued notable and substantial coverage was provided (I’m sure we can find something somewhere), the interpretation you’ve offered appears to be just that – interpretation. --Merbabu (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to thank Merbabu for remaining courteous, even when we disagree on the content. Some editors may be interested in a previous discussion thread about this. Thanks, Lester 01:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Lester, I'd like your comments on why this old incident has now become encyclopaedic, when in fact it was discussed and rejected at the time. --Pete (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Skyring(Pete), you answered that yourself in the previous discussion, when you said the criteria for it being notable is when it is still in the news after a period of "9 months". Here's an example (News Ltd paper) of it still being in the news after 14 months. I'm using your definition of notable to include it in the article Lester 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
One minor mention in all the time that has passed. Yeeees, that may be technically "still in the news", but you're attempting to draw a very long bow, I feel. In any case, the mention is not in the context of an ongoing or building story relevant to Howard. Instead it is a Rudd story. --Pete (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's relevant now that Howard is gone. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
How does that impact the relevancy? What other issues in the Howard article could be/has been taken out as a result of losing power? Timeshift (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There was no concensus for inclusion at the time of the incident. It can hardly be more relevant now when it is stale and insignificant. If Howard and Obama were heads of government with an existing and ongoing history, it might be worthy of inclusion again, but Howard isn't going to come back, is he? --Pete (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
"Howard isn't going to come back, is he?" Is that WP:OR I see? :P Consensus is certainly mixed at the moment, thus there is no reason to remove it from the article. Let's also remember that WP:CONSENSUS changes irrespective of whether the issue is more significant now or not. Timeshift (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Skyring(Pete), I'm not sure what you mean when you say that there was no consensus for inclusion during the previous discussion. When I read through it, it appears everyone was in favour of inclusion except you, and you said it would be notable if the issue was still going in 9 months. In 2007, there were newspaper editorials about it (eg The Baltimore Sun, Feb 2007, USA.) And the newspaper editorials are still coming forth. Example, The Age, Melbourne, March 2008 (word search for 'Obama'), and The Washington Post, April 2008, more than a year since the event. Lester 02:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this latest debate and what has been claimed as to what happened, per the bias debate, indeed shows some editors have less than good intentions. Timeshift (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to speak clearly rather than making it up. Shot info (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

With no consensus here to remove it, it keeps being removed, with personal attacks. What a shame, I can't be bothered contributing to this article anymore when the loud minority insist on things their way and force reverts with no consensus. Timeshift (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely it's an obvious thing to include in a short paragraph. I'm all for deleting irrelevant details, but this was pretty big, and as Lester points out it still gets a mention from time to time in both countries. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course its notable. Its evidence of the strength of John Howard's political convictions that he'd say something like that to help his side of politics in another country, even with the possibility that he might have had to have worked with Obama as the next president ... if he'd won the 2007 federal election. But maybe he knew he wouldn't be coming back, and this was just a little sign ... anyway, its notable for what it says about John Howard's way of doing politics. Eyedubya (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This video of Rudd's censure motion on the Obama issue is also of good viewing when judging if this is noteable. Seems 4 find it noteable, 4 find it non-noteable so far going by this discussion... "To accuse the Democratic Party as being the terrorist's part of choice, this is a most serious charge. To accuse the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson, of being the terrorist's party of choice. I cannot understand how any responsible leader of this country can say to the nation that it is his serious view that the Democratic Party of the US is the terrorists party of choice, but these are your words prime minister, I did not invent them, they are yours."..."If I stood at this dispatch box that the Republicans if they won would cause an eruption of joy, on the part of Al-queda and terrorists, can you imagine the reaction?" - Rudd. And despite being repeatedly given the chance, Howard did not regret his words. Non-noteable? Hah. Timeshift (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to laugh at Lester's efforts to stuff words into my mouth. Despite what I say to the contrary. It wasn't notable at the time, no editors reinstated the mention in the year or more since, and now, when it's all but an irrelevant memory, Lester and his comrades are talking it up, apparently for the sake of causing a little more disruption. I can see no reason to overturn the established concensus after fourteen months. If Obama becomes president and Howard is recalled to the Prime Ministership and the relationship between the two is relevant and important, then sure, let's revisit this issue. Until then, this trivia doesn't deserve the same amnount of space as real issues in Howard's career. --Pete (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You've already stated your position. It's four-all so far. And per WP:CONSENSUS, "I can see no reason to overturn the established concensus after fourteen months" is invalid, consensus changes without the issue changing. Timeshift (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP no consensus means the default position is you-know-what. But been through this before, numerous times yet, the actual "loud minority" keeps failing to get consensus. Shot info (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me quote the exact words of user:Skyring from the previous discussion: "If it's still on the radar in a month's time, it's notable. --Pete 05:14, 13 February 2007" Skyring(Pete) invited the issue to be revisited in 9 months. Recent newspaper editorials show it's both "on the radar" as well as notable, so Skyring's given criteria has now been fulfilled. I respect user:Merbabu's decision to question the text and put it up for discussion, has he did so politely without edit warring. However, some others who have recently indulged in edit wars to revert the article and delete the Obama incident are not taking into account the many people who feel the text should stay.Lester 23:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP, WP:CONSENSUS. Shot info (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the Obama text also meets the WP:BLP criteria. There is nothing libelous in the text (that is, unless Howard libeled Obama!), and it balances the previous praise of Howard by Bush, who praised Howard as a "man of steel". With Hilary Clinton's campaign in its final death throws, Barack Obama is set to take a more prominent place in world history, which ever way it goes. At the least he will be the first African American to stand for presidential election. That's huge. If he wins his status will be iconic. Here we have an Australian PM launch a verbal attack on him that attempts to link him with terrorism. It's very strange that major word newspapers are still reporting on it, and writing editorials about Howard's attack (ie, the recent Washington Post) if the issue is non-notable (ie non memorable). Obama hasn't forgotten. The US press haven't forgotten. Lester 00:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, the Gang of Four need some serious re-education and ideological re-programming on the meaning of notability. Its one thing to wish that an issue would go away, while acknowledging the issue's undeniable existence. It is quite another to fail to see the issue due to blind faith in one's ideological position. This isn't about consensus, its about wishful thinking. Eyedubya (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Eyedubya, how exactly do you see idealogy affecting the position of those opposed to inclusion? Indeed, as I am one who has stated an opposition to inclusion, could you please explain how where you see my idealogical positions, and how they are affecting this debate?
Also, I can assure you there is no shared and consistent idealogical position between those opposed - trust me, the record shows there is no shared view of the world amongst us. (PS, if you are indeed suggesting that this debate is running along your perception of idealogical positions, then it appears to me that the Gang of Four analogy is reversed to your perceptions implied here). --Merbabu (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you understand my sense of humour. All I'm saying is, this discussion needs to be conducted with reference to WP policy on notability, verifiability, etc. and not some people's subjective views and crystal ball gazing speculations. This is an event that has happened, and it has been recorded by reliable sources, and remains under discussion in the public domain, and is relevant to the political persona of John Howard. The argument that it is in the past is nonsensical - everything in a BLP is about past events in a subject's life - the only criterion for inclusion is notability, verifiability, reliability. Conversely, Kevin Rudd's earwax is just that - earwax. Sure, it happened, but did it have any notable political meaning? If people can't tell the difference between earwax and accusations of succour for terrorists, then clearly, they don't understand what notability means either, and would be well advised to read the WP policy. I am not interested in the ideological persuasions of other editors, and I haven't the time to follow up their edit histories to attempt to align them with any specific position - it was a light-hearted allusion to the political nature of some people's editing and the attempt to suppress views they disagree with - for whatever reason. Oh, and the number '4' kinda helped. Eyedubya (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"If people can't tell the difference between earwax and accusations of succour for terrorists, then clearly, they don't understand what notability means" - Timeshift stands up and applauds. Timeshift (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Merbabu, I just wanted to acknowledge your generosity of spirit with your recent copy edits on this item. Demonstrates that collaboration across difrerence is possible. Thanks. Eyedubya (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Everyone has their moments, even me. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"No consensus for removal"

Looking at the Obama material, I see an editor reinserted it with the comment "No consensus for removal". Given that this material has been the subject of controversy and edit-warring ever since it was inserted, and that after removal of similiar material over a year ago, the article did just fine without it, with those who now fervently insist on its inclusion apparently unconcerned, it seems to me that the status quo is that the article does not include the Obama material. Even if it was not explicitly stated then WP:CONSENSUS for exclusion became the default.

I refer editors to WP:SILENCE. This article does not need consensus to remove the Obama material. It was removed a year ago, no editors saw fit to restore it, and consensus grew as a result of this implicit consent. The situation is that consensus is required to insert it.

Would those who wish to include the Obama material like to comment on how their actions conform to established wikipolicy? --Pete (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It was removed, as you know, by yourself, over a year ago. This was done despite all other editors in that previous discussion being in favour of inclusion. I don't call that "consensus". Your practice of deleting cited content as your first course of action, and then edit waring to keep the content out, violates many Wikipedia rules. You may like to read the guidelines about deleting. This edit waring makes discussion difficult and increases the likelihood that the issue must be mediated. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Will you agree to stop edit waring, and agree to be civil? Lester 14:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you please read WP:SILENCE? Your views on other matters are unhelpful in this context. The Obama material was swiftly deleted and not reinserted. People may say what they like in discussion, but the consensus you claim to have found there didn't extend to any editor actually caring enough to reinstate it. Fifteen months went by. Fifteen months in which you and the other editors reviewed and heavily edited and battled over this article. At no time did you or any other editor think that the Obama material was noteworthy or relevant or encyclopaedic. Not enough to reinsert it. According to WP:SILENCE, that's a strong implication of consensus.
Now we see this stale old material reinserted, and four edit warriors jump up to claim that it is noteworthy and consensus must be found for removal. I say that this is contrary to wikipolicy, it is disruptive, and it is a waste of everybody's time to battle over this trivia.
If you can't comment on these points of wikipolicy, despite repeated invitations to do so, then I will assume that you agree with WP:SILENCE and your objections are purely a matter of your own personal opinion, and you wish to place your views above those of the community.
As for myself, I'm happy to abide by consensus, but I cannot see that there is any consensus for inclusion. The status quo for fifteen months was that John Howard's biographical article did not mention the spat with Obama. The arguments now put forward that this old material is relevant, notable, and worthy of inclusion strike me as contrived and shallow.
You will notice that I made no objection to your addition of material covering Howard's relationship with Bush. I think that this subject is one that is important to understanding the Howard years. After all, here we are at war in Iraq, when similar Commonwealth nations such as New Zealand and Canada are not. Obviously the USA-AUS relationship is a distinctive one and the close personal alliance of Bush and Howard has had a definite and historic impact. Maybe if Howard had staid on as head of government, then the Howard-Obama relationship might have grown increasingly prickly, with effects on our alliance. But that didn't happen, and instead of turning into something significant, Howard's comments of fifteen months ago are now of minor interest only. --Pete (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
More than a year later, Obama raised the issue with Australian politicians. That renewed the issue and proved that the issue is high in Obama's relations with Australia. The renewed issue made the news again recently, including newspaper editorials in major US papers. This is because Obama's status has also increased since the incident originally occurred. Lester 21:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
For me, the last two sentences of Pete's post above sum up the content part of this dispute:
Maybe if Howard had staid on as head of government, then the Howard-Obama relationship might have grown increasingly prickly, with effects on our alliance. But that didn't happen, and instead of turning into something significant, Howard's comments of fifteen months ago are now of minor interest only.
It's now trivia, and an academic question of no significance.
But, still the question of process remains. I'm not sure how WP:SILENCE applies here. It is not a policy by any means - merely someone's thought on an issue. Further, I'm sure that an opposing essay could be found, however, my disinclination to trawl wikipedia for such page to back up wikilawyering, is only surpassed by my disinclination to edit war. But not to worry, there are plenty here who seem able to maintain the edit/lawyer trenches for both "sides". Indeed, one doesn't have to find another essay page to counter WP:SILENCE - the page is vague it could be used against itself, and a reverse interpretation to that offered by Skyring is clearly evident. Clearly, the status quo is contended. Unfortunately, even then, the old "get consensus" chestnut is thrown up, while every effort is made to make that impossible. Works everytime.
The Obama content is still redundant and trivial, no matter how messed up the lawyered process for exclusion is. --Merbabu (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I quote from one of Wikipedia's Seven Planks of Wisdom: "Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected."
In fact this is the lead paragraph in one of our fundamental wikilaws, and presumably the mention of WP:SILENCE has been discussed, endorsed and possibly received a gold pawprint from Jimbo the Dogking. Granted, we're talking about an absence of material, rather than an addition, but it was added, deleted and left that way for over a year, a year in which the current Bama-boosters were heavily into the John Howard article.
I won't say I'm tearing my hair out over the battles here and other places. In fact I kind of like to finish a long shift and see what new nonsensities have been added for my entertainment. But I use Wikipedia extensively as a valuable resource, and while it works just fine for subjects such as The Louvre or Existentialism, whenever we get into political articles, the material is undependable for serious seekers of knowledge. We owe a considerable responsibility to our readers to provide useful information, rather than slanted, fulsome or incomplete coverage because one side has worn down the other in discussion or revert wars. --Pete (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know about consensus. It's not something unique to wikipedia, in fact it's fundamental to live, career, etc. It is about working together - not bunkering down into a set position without budging. I see none of the former, plenty of the latter. If you want consensus, you need to work for it - if you don't want it (I can see you don't), then you don't get it. Consensus is also about accepting something - it's not a veto tool to be used when it suits (or when it suits to poison consensus, or just refuse to provide it if it doesn't suit). We cannot demand wikipedia meet a standard (a standard on which you and I agree on in this case). If the community wants rubbish - as seems to be the case here - then that's what it provides. Indeed, with consensus having failed (little evidence that anyone actually tried to achieve it), then it comes to raw numbers, doesn't it?
How does WP:SILENCE come into play here? There is clearly no silence. And "consensus can change". It is a stupid inclusion, but it's time we got over it and stop wasting our time. --Merbabu (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
There was a period of over a year when the article did not include the Obama material, and it was not reinserted by those who are now hotbloodedly demanding its inclusion. So the status quo is that the article does not have it. We do not need consensus for removal - we already have that consensus through WP:SILENCE.
For consensus in Wikipedia, that doesn't mean we count noses and the winning side gets to dictate the wording. It's a matter of coming up with a wording we can all live with. Two ways of doing this - to find neutral words or to present both views. I tend to prefer the latter, actually, as the reader is given more information.
But in this case it's in or out. The Obama drama would usefully fit under a "Trivia" heading, if we had one, because it is simply not relevant to Howard's career in any meaningful way. Interesting in itself, but well outside the main thrust of this article. --Pete (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community changes - move with the times!

To recap then: a) this item was felt to be notable 15 months ago by some editors. b) An editor removed it without seeking consensus to do so. c) The issue resurfaced in the international media. d) An editor decided to reintroduce the item into the article. e) The same editor who removed it without consensus is seeking to remove it again. What's changed? Well, in the course of a year, the issue has resurfaced, one of the interlocutants in the issue has become far more significant, while the subject of the article has become a lot less significant - thus dramatically changing the notability of some aspects of this BLP - in favour of some items, and against others. Only time will tell how significant much of the current content turns out to be. In this instance, the item refers to someone who stands a good chance of being the next President of the USA - thus making comments about him by the article's subject notable. In addition to the changes in external circumstances related to the notability of the topic, there have been changes in the make-up of WP editors engaged with this page. At least one of the editors who are now calling for the inclusion of this item wasn't involved in the original discussion, didn't even have this page on a watchlist. It needs to be noted that the constitution of the WP 'community' is constantly changing - it grows by a huge number of editors every minute in fact. And with the addition of new editors, come new voices, opinions and values. Those calling for the deletion of this item seem to think that the editors of 15 months ago are the only ones whose views, opinions, values etc. matter here. Well, while the tenacity of some editors is certainly notable, the same can't be said to the intellectual content of their arguments related to the notability of this item. Notability has clearly been established, all that remains is to find a form of words that is acceptable. Some work has been done here by a couple of editors already. Its likely more will follow.Eyedubya (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
A couple of points about WP:SILENCE. First, it is an essay, not a guideline. Second, if you must know, the reason I didn't contest the Obama issue a year ago (or many other issues on Australian politics pages) is because I've got better things to do than argue and engage in revert wars on those pages. On notability: Pete said a year ago words to the effect of "let's see if people are still talking about this in a month's time" - well people are from time to time, and I believe that demonstrates it is. People go to Wikipedia to get the true story on things such as this - so why can't we present it? Now, to move forward, I suggest the issue can be presented in a more balanced way. The last rendition - Howard's comments + Obama's response - reads pretty anti-Howard. If we could have one sentence with Howard's response to Obama - I believe he said something along the lines that he was really making the point that we need to stay in Iraq than interfering with US politics - then I think we've got a reasonably balanced paragraph (the statement, one opinion against, one opinion for) that more people will be happy with. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's so funny to see Pete go ape over policy, yet completely ignores the consensus policy that says consensus changes and that "consensus agreed the reverse x months ago" has no relevance or bearing. So he is either unaware of the policy, or purposefully ignoring it. Either way, very amusing (and indicative). Timeshift (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to amuse you, dear! My life is spent making people happy and it's always good to put a smile on someone's face. You certainly give me a great deal of pleasure. I think I mentioned the consensus changes thing early on, but you may have missed it. As I said before, I'm happy to go with consensus, if one emerges. --Pete (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this we had a consensus that the information didnt appear to be of significance in relation to this article which could be substantially larger given the amount of time JH had in office and the impact that had. But the situation has changed in that Obama looks likely to be the Democratic Party candidate in the 2008 US Presidential elections. He raised the statement as an issue again, this makes JH's statement significant in Aus-US relationships more so if Obama becomes president. Whether it gets included now or not I can see this being revisited over the coming year anyway. Gnangarra 12:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a shame admin opinions dont count for more, because they've all taken the "add it back in" side so far. Says a lot about the dispute too. Timeshift (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I'm kinda a swinging voter! in reality I think this issue is need of an Election to decide long term whether it should be included, in meantime inclusion does appear to be the logical conclusion, though equally WP:NOT#NEWS could be thrown around, but that would need some thoughtful interpretation as its application is presented more towards no notable people than specific events for notable people ... Gnangarra 13:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOT#NEWS is a very long bow to draw ;-) Timeshift (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
but this discussion is drawing longbows ;-) Gnangarra 14:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Did Howard criticise any other foreign opposition leaders or candidates in this way? The incident seems unique in that regard. Imagine if in the 1960s Howard had a spat with Martin Luther King. Would that be notable enough for our article? Obama is already one of the most significant African American figures in history, and was clearly angered by Howard's attack. At a recent Obama press conference, a journalist fumbled his words and accidentally linked Obama with terrorism. Obama retorted that he has had to put up with this kind of accusation in the past (one of which came from our Mr Howard). It's a big issue for Obama, and part of the story of his run for the White House. We must also look at this from an international perspective. Of all the words Howard ever spoke, what would be the most notable and remembered by the U.S public? Another reason for inclusion is the mark it left from an American viewpoint. Lester 14:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That makes a solid reason for inclusion in the Obama article as JH was a country leader when making the comment. The US part of the argument should be dismissed as bias, as this isnt an encyclopedia for the US public. The question is how strong is it in relation to JH, this is why I see this being as unresolvable until we know what happens with Obama's presidential hopes. As its unresolvable I default to inclusion because its significant that a "head of state" made such a comment, the comment still gets referred to and it does appear that in the future it could have even greater significance in relation to AUS-US relations at which point it will need to be included and probably expanded. Gnangarra 14:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I dunno. If Rudd had made the comment, then it would have more significance, as there is every possibility of Rudd and Obama being heads of government at the same time. Howard and Obama are never going to have any sort of official relationship. I know Timeshift thinks that Howard could make a return to power, and I'm happy to offer attractive odds for Timeshift and his money. Likewise, despite Lester's wishes above, I doubt that Obama loses any sleep over Howard's comment, and as for the general U.S. public having any kind of perception of John Howard, that's something to chuckle over. Most of them wouldn't be able to name the last leaders of Canada or Mexico, I dare say. I doubt that too many Australians could either, come to think of it. --Pete (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop the edit war

Howard's commentary about Obama is notable for the breach of the convention of non-interference in the ordinary domestic politics of other countries that it represents (being a criticism of one popular aspirant for the American Presidency) combined with the fact that Howard had portrayed the Labor Opposition as being weak/unreliable on the US-Australia alliance. --Brendan [ contribs ] 11:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Its also notable in the Obama raised it again about 6-12 months later even though he knew the government had changed. Gnangarra 12:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
But does any of this mean much to Pete? Or is he still thinking up a new line of attack since his 'consensus said otherwise a year ago' line went down the drain? Timeshift (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The recent discussion is tending towards a censensus for inclusion with more neutral wording. As such, I'm happy to go along, as I've repeatedly said. Kindly cease making unwarranted and incivil personal attacks. --Pete (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As for BLP, I’m not sure how that applies. There is no suggestion that the info is contentious, unverifiable, or libellous. (ie, inclusion is contentious, not the info itself) Rather, the question as I see it, is one of notability, which I fail to see how that fits into BLP. So while I think inclusion is silly, I can’t see how it fits BLP – perhaps it could be pointed out to me.--Merbabu (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This article _is_ a BLP. This means that there needs to be a consensus for inclusion. Material considered contentious or not notable can be excluded. So far there is not a consensus and the claims of "majority" have fallen by the wayside (although with the discussion now happening a consensus is starting to emerge, no thanks to the party hacks who would rather information be inserted regardless of policy). This is BLP-101 and doesn't need discussion. Convince editors of the informations notworthiness, stop the attacks on other editors opinions, follow policy and lo, consensus will appear. Until then, we are in limbo. Per BLP, "when in doubt, leave it out". Shot info (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Regarding the current ANi complaint: The resolution to this is for User:Skyring to 1. Stop Edit Waring (five reverts in the past few days eg.1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and 2. For ::User:Skyring to use standard Wikipedia content dispute resolution processes instead of bothering the ANi board about his own edit war. It's the edit waring that overrides and nullifies the discussion of other editors. Lester 01:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)He claims that OTHERS are goading HIM. Oh that's rich. Or perhaps it's a leapfrogging tactic. Timeshift (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This is all a shame. It’s not that hard for editors (plural) on any “side” to pull their heads in, quit dwelling on personal animosity and well-known ideological trenches, and focus on content instead of each other. This last section is ridiculous with all the point scoring and dredging up past grievances. No wonder there’s no consensus. --Merbabu (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
True. It's better to disengage, but that's why we have policy, to help us through these situations. By fossiling the relative positions, no consensus will form and the default BLP position "wins". So it's often to the benefit of those who wish to include information, to be inclusive, rather than the silly situation that we are in where the default position of the so called "majority" is immediate ad-hom. Excellent tactic to help form consensus, per WP:CONSENSUS. Shot info (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I reverted this talk page to restore the posts deleted by user:Shot info. The reason is that it's important to retain everyone's comments, no matter how trivial or wrongly placed you think they may be. In this case, my comment to user:Skyring was to use conventional content resolution processes, rather than ANi. I think that is a reasonable way forward, and so my comment (and the other deleted comments) needed to remain. Thanks, Lester 02:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You really need to have a look at WP:TALK but it's unsurprising that you fail to understand what we are doing here at an encyclopedia. Disappointing, but unsurprising. Shot info (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
One way or another, the edit waring should stop. If those engaged in the war are not willing to stop, I suggest it's time to involve other outside editors to stop the edit war. ANi is not the right venue, unless the intention is to place bans on edit warriors. I think Merbabu's suggestion for a Request For Comment is probably the best way forward. Regards, Lester 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. Consensus isn't forming (as I discussed above). Only problem is, the usual suspects probably won't stay out of the RfC, which kind of defeats the purpose. Shot info (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I requested an RfC, but deleted it again, as per user:Merbabu's comment below. Lester 03:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow - things are moving fast. is this a proposed wording for rfc? or have you initiated it? IMO, the best thing here is for every to just chill out for a week without prejudice or WP:WRONGVERSION discussions - we might see things differently then. It would have been better to at least try and achieve an agreement on wording here. Ie, I don't see that it is a BLP issue. It is a notabilty/trivia issue, and thus suggest the rfc misrepresents the issue (at least for me). --Merbabu (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
As stated previously, I deleted the Request for Comment after reading Merbabu's post above. We will give it some more time. Thanks, Lester 03:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Merbabu. Let's everyone take a deep calming breathe and bring proposed wording here for discussion. --Brendan [ contribs ] 07:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Page protection and talk page conduct

The article is protected until the dispute is settled. Additionally, I have compressed a couple of sections of the talk page that were largely concerned with ad hominem arguments of little relevance to the improvement of the article and only likely to foster further bad blood.

Further attempts to pursue the dispute by attacking other editors or by snide, uncivil remarks will result in blocks to prevent such behaviour.

I recommend you all start an article RFC on the contested paragraph as quickly as possible.

CIreland (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

All that's needed is some tweaking of the words - perhaps the removal of Obama's original response to Howard and the insertion of the more recent references to Howard's critical remarks in the international media - thus demonstrating the notability of the original incident, its clear relevance to a Bio about John Howard, and providing informative, uptodate content. Its clearly notable, it just needs cleaning up and updating that's all. Eyedubya (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Two days of silence. Perhaps the passion is directed not towards creating an encyclopaedia, but in knocking edges off fellow editors. May I make a proposal which I hope will lead to a way forward for this article and others that likewise arouse strong emotion?

Our encyclopaedia should not have just the appearance of authority and wisdom, it should have the strong foundations that inspire confidence, and unlike a printed encyclopaedia found in the library, the foundations upon which Wikipedia articles rest are visible to all. Painfully visible. Frankly, some of the arguments raised in discussion are so lacking in merit that we should all be ashamed to see them put forward as a basis for inclusion, exclusion, or modification of the article's text.

Political (and religious, and sexual) articles attract partisan editors. Whilst we should be respectful and inclusive, we should not determine the facts on the basis of counting the noses of anonymous accounts. Nor by listening to the loudest cheers or boos. Nor by intimidating our opponents into silence or goading them into such bad behaviour that they are removed by the authorities.

I think others have suggested that as our own opinions have no place in an article text, likewise they have no place in discussion. I disagree to some extent, because we cannot always call upon authoritative published sources for whatever precise point we are discussing.

However, in some cases we can. If, as in the current case, the claim is that an incident is significant upon the national or international stage, then that significance will doubtless be recognised. Not just in the insight and genius of Wikipedia editors, but in the statements of respected commentators. People who do not lurk in talk page shadows. People who are readily visible and widely respected in today's media.

If User:AnonymousPoltroon waves his hands and says "I think that XXX is clearly notable and uniquely significant" or "I say that YYY is utter drivel", then we should not be overly impressed with such declarations as a basis for our widely used and respected encyclopaedia. Even if such declarations are accompanied by self-generated argument of the highest logical impeccability.

But if User:LurkingPundit says "ZZZ is of global significance because Paul Kelly makes the argument here" then we should perhaps follow the link and think about what Paul Kelly or Michelle Grattan or Laurie Oakes says about the precise matter in dispute.

The matter before us is that Howard's remarks on Obama are of lasting significance. I ask those who insist that this is in fact the case to find some current published opinion to back up their own forcefully and repeatedly stated claims. Is there a retrospective on the Howard era, a new hardback biography, even an opinion piece on Obama as he battles to scale the final heights, something that they can point to? Not just one or two sparse mentions of old events spread over several months, but rather a current and respected source who can make their argument for them.

By extension, we can use the same technique as a way of avoiding personal attacks in what should be serious discussion. It is one thing to say that User:DuckWeaver is lacking in logic and best suited to schoolyard argument, quite another to accuse Michelle Grattan of being shallow and partisan.

I shall do my best, henceforward, to eliminate original research from my own participation on talk pages, and I ask my fellow editors to hold me to this. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The list of esteemed journalists you provided is interesting. Nothing against Paul Kelly or Laurie Oakes as markers of notability, but what about other famous journalists and authors such as Robert Manne and David Marr, or Howard biographer Peter van Onselen? Will you accept their commentary as a marker for the notability of the content? What about editorials published in major newspapers a year after the event? Wouldn't that also show notability of the content? Lester 01:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The intention is that editors put forward the published arguments of others, rather than their own. In the same way that we source our facts. We may argue about sources and their validity, but this is familiar wikiterritory. --Pete (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

back to Howard's attack on Obama

Howard's attack on Obama was unusual in many respects, and is an important element in building a profile of Howard. It was risky. To inflame a presidential candidate would have upset Australian/US relations, had both Obama and Howard won their respective elections. The fact that Howard lost doesn't take away from the fact that Howard took that risk. An important element in the profile of a Prime Minister who's key feature was Australian/US relations. He also inflamed the US media, and influenced the American population's impression of both Howard and Australia as a whole. This was not a Howard gaffe. Howard knew what he was doing. It was not a trivial incident, as some have portrayed. The Age prints the full text of Howard's interview, + Michelle Grattan commentary (as requested by user:Skyring), and analysis by Fairfax US correspondent Michael Gawenda. Happy reading. Lester 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

All three sources dated February 2007. That's fifteen months ago, when Howard was Prime Minister and he couldn't blow his nose without a camera in his face. Everything he did or said got a mention and people lined up to comment on it. As they do for Rudd nowadays.
I said, at the time, that it was news. There is no dispute there. But is anybody nowadays making a public claim that the Obama comment is significant in any sort of historical or biographial sense? Anybody who isn't one of a few anonymous Wikipedia editors, that is. Come on. If the incident is of lasting significance, then people out in the wider world will be saying precisely that, and they will be saying it now, when it is no longer news. --Pete (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Just on the Paul Kelly issue user:Skyring(Pete) mentioned earlier, I managed to find commentary on the event by journalist and author Paul Kelly (as user:Skyring(Pete) requested), who described it as "a serious blunder" for John Howard, that it "exposed his diminishing political traction" on the "US alliance and national security", that the incident "penetrates to Howard's leadership credentials", "He was misguided in getting involved in US politics. He was humiliated by Obama." Those are the words of Paul Kelly, generally considered a conservative commentator, whom you held up with esteem earlier in the discussion. We have commentators unanimously saying that Howard's attack on Obama was a serious / major incident. Wikipedia editors of the opinion that the incident was not serious or major should come forth with cited information to back up those opinions. Lester 01:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again, an article from February last year. Read my comments above about lasting significance, please. --Pete (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The articles, commentaries, and editorials with date stamps from recent weeks were listed earlier in this discussion, proving the issue is still getting significant coverage. You asked for commentary from Paul Kelly and Michelle Grattan, and I have researched it and come back with the commentaries you requested. It's up to you to find some significant articles to prove your stated opinion that the issue has no significance to anyone. For a Prime Minister to make a "serious blunder" during an election year is always significant. If a major national security issue arose in 2007, it may have worked in Howard's favour and he might still be in office. However, the Obama attack weakened Howard's leadership credentials on national security (as the quotes above show), during an election year, leaving Howard exposed to other issues like the economy. The lasting significance is that Howard is no longer in power. Skyring(Pete), it's time for you to back up your opinion (with references) that the Obama attack did not affect Howard's standing. As the issue was widely reported, and received massive amounts of commentary around the world, you should be able to find some references to substantiate your opinion that it had no significance to Howard. Lester 01:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Three days ago, the atmosphere here was so poisonous and so unhelpful to constructive editing that I sought outside assistance, because we weren't getting anywhere on our own. It's the opinions of the participants that are the problem, with the claims of one side talked down by the other. Often with good reason. I won't go into a line by line analysis of your statement above, except to say it is an excellent example of opinion. Perhaps you believe every word you say, perhaps you hope to win me over through hyperbole. Perhaps other factors are in play.
Could I ask you to glance through "the articles, commentaries, and editorials with date stamps from recent weeks" and see if any of them make an argument that the incident of fifteen months ago is of lasting significance? My memory, which is rarely perfect, is that they were all concerned with other events, Howard's words were mentioned only in passing, and there was no analysis or commentary on the incident.
I am proposing a reasonably painless way of getting continuing outside input into our deliberations on what to include in this and other articles. We don't need to go flagging down admins to sort out our squabbles, we don't need to fling rubbish and insults at each other, we just need to find respected sources who can make our arguments for us. --Pete (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It's obvious that this discussion is going round in circles with little prospect of getting anywhere. The only way to resolve this is to call in the masses from outside this article with an immediate RfC. Lester 04:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
What is obvious is that you cannot find any recent published opinions that the Howard-Obama spat of fifteen months ago is of lasting biographical significance. Given your excellent research abilities, if there were any to be found, you would have uncovered them and presented them here triumphantly. --Pete (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The argument that in order for the Obama incident to warrant inclusion in the article it must still be in the news is a complete furphy. If it were to be applied to the rest of the atrticle's content, then most of the article would have to be removed - after all, are people in the media talking about John Howard that much any more? Not really, he hardly warrants a mention - he's no longer in power, right? Which is the nub of User:SkyRing's argument. HOwever, the article by Paul Kelly does satisfy WP:Notability and thus demonstrates that the item on Obama warrants inclusion in the article. Let's not be distracted from the issue. We need to have a form of words for the Obama incident proposed and developed on this page for inclusion in the article. The notability issue has been sorted.Eyedubya (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Having protected the article, I don't wish to become involved in the content dispute. However, I feel I must point out one policy misconception that is pervading the discussion. Notability is a set of criteria used to determine whether a topic should have an article, not to determine the content of the article. The most important policies that govern article content are neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. CIreland (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point CIreland. Looks like Pete falls on his sword yet again. Timeshift (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Timeshift, I thought the point of taking time out, and the drastic step of protecting the page was to cut the incivilty and personal attacks. No, you are not the only one carrying on like that so possibly unfair to single you out here but other editors should take note too, and it's more than time to cut the comment on editors, rather than content. From now on I will request that the admin threatening to block editors for such comments actually does so. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe, right or wrong, that Pete does not have the best of intentions, with actions and comments made to provoke which I am happy to respond to. But as the discussion has moved on from whether to include, my aim is complete, so i'll be moving on and away from this discussion as a whole, with a smile. Timeshift (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
By that logic, then if we can verify Howard's favourite brand and colour of underwear, then we have no choice but to include it. --Merbabu (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the best (in fact the only) sources provided by those who push for inclusion, we have:

And more recently:

Summing up, the incident was a serious story for three days (described by Lester as "receiving massive amounts of commentary around the world"), and the only recent mentions have been one-liners in two opinion pieces based on Rudd, described as "still getting significant coverage". Other pro-inclusion editors display matching sets of hyperbole. Kevin Rudd got far more coverage on his earwax-eating incident, though I cannot say that the global commentary included much in the way of serious analysis. The story isstill resonating with a mention earlier this month. --Pete (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

SkyRing's points merely indicate that no original research is required to write this section, the sources for content are reliable and verifiable. QED. Eyedubya (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Significance is well over stated by the inclusionists on this issue. Apart from dubious arguments over the extent of coverage, why else is it important? Source? --Merbabu (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
As has already been noted by Admin CIreland, the significance is not the issue - in any event, the significance is stated by the authors cited above, within those media articles. The issue we are trying to deal with is writing this section from a NPOV. We need someone to contribute a form of words that we can work on. Please lets not get distracted and confused by extreme relativist arguments that suggest earwax is of the same order of encycledic relevance as terrorism in relation to articles about political leaders. In any event, those advocating that the earwax incident should be included in the Rudd might consider whether or not they'd be happy to have an item on Howard's choice of underwear in this article. If that's the price to be paid for inclusion, so be it. Let's have both, and let the rest of the world judge the significance of WP as a source of information (i.e. these arguments are sounding like 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?' kinds of questions, instead of common sense considerations of what any reasonable user of an encyclopedia might deem to be of relevance in certain articles). Eyedubya (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Significance is everything. The opinion of Cireland as an admin is irrelevant to content (as he himself pointed out). My underwear example merely points out the absurdity of saying that significance is of no relevance. We all know relevance is. Again, how is something that was of 3 days significance in the news, but lasting impact. Seriously - what is the lasting impact? Are you seriously suggesting that this is worthy of inclusion with the other items in the article. One can then only question why the well-known "leftists" are so keen for its inclusion. If that's the criteria for inclusion, then we are opening ourselves up for a long list of insignificant events - that is not a biography, that's an long incoherent list of irrelevancies. --Merbabu (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, if such criteria are to be consistently and rigorously applied, then a number of items within the article could also be removed until the 'test of time' proves their long-standing relevance. For example, the speculation about Howard being knighted - why is that still in there? No-one seems to have picked up on this one. It was speculation by others, it never happened, it wasn't something Howard said or did - a piece of fiction in many ways. But its there. And this is just one example. While much is made of the terms 'leftist' and 'party hacks' in relation to this and other sections of the article, I'm not sure they're meaningful or helpful. People want to claim that things aren't 'sitgnificant' and provide a whole lot of argumentation to back it up, but rarely apply such arguments to the rest of the article. It thus makes it look like the argument is really about those who want to make the article present an entirely positive image of John Howard versus those who want the article to be critical. And yet, that's not actually the point of the piece, surely? The aim should be to accept that the article's subject has done things, said things, been involved in events and activities, that have been matters of public record, and that the article should reflect those occurrences with commentary provided by reliable, verifiable etc sources. The actual significance of anything in the article is really a matter for readers to decide. Some readers may decide that Howard's comments on Obama are 'right on' and only make Howard look even better. Others may judge differently. The point is, Howard said them, Obama reacted, senior journalists in Australia saw fit to pass comment.Eyedubya (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree whole-heartedly that the speculation of knight hood be removed. I also suggest that much of this article is way too detailed - the fourth term section for starters. On a related but much broader level, note how half the article's sections start with "The Howard Government..." or similar. There's a message there for the article's future evolution. --Merbabu (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The knighthood thing is speculation. Looks to me like someone saw an opinion piece in a newspaper and decided that made it good enough to include here. It's not. Just because the article temporarily includes such trivialities doesn't mean that it should permanently include every little thing. --Pete (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk page conduct

Without wanting to take any moral high ground, may I say that "Perhaps you'd like to apologise for going off half-dicked?" and "Looks like Pete falls on his sword yet again" are both examples from this page of why collaboration and hence consensus is impossible on this article. An admin (User:CIreland) has threatened to block for poor talk page conduct - I think it's time that if comments along the lines of my examples persist, then requests be made to the admin for such a block. I'm not sure if it would happen, but I'd certainly ask. Of course, tell me (on my talk page preferably) if I'm out of line in saying this and I'll listen. But something's gotta give - having said that, there is an improvement in conduct - maybe not enough though. --Merbabu (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I apologise for the "half-dicked" comment. I initially wrote "going off half-cocked" and I then thought that "half-dicked" sounded so much more appropriate. It made me chuckle, anyway, though I imagine that once the target of my wit worked it out, he grinned not. Oh yeah. I don't think I got that apology after all. Wonder why. --Pete (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I only meant to use those two examples as anonymous, um, examples. And did not mean to single out anyone. Further, I intended the above as a line in the sand - what's past is past, and what is to come is different (I hope!). cheers --Merbabu (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts. I know that I can be snarky and snide, and this doesn't really help. --Pete (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(continued) discussion on Howard attack on Obama

I wish to comment more on the significance of Howard's attack on Obama, with references to show that his was no ordinary event, and nothing like this had happened before. Regarding the Labor Party opposition, the Sydney Morning Herald said: Labor described Mr Howard's attack against Senator Obama as unprecedented. / Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland said "It's the first time that I can recall that an Australian prime minister has engaged in American politics in such a partisan way". ref. In The Age, political journalist Michelle Grattan said "he'd gone way beyond conventional behaviour in his attack on Barack Obama."ref Also in the Grattan article, Howard received a censure motion (a formal reprimand) in the Parliament of Australia as a result. The National Interest says: Howard’s comments may have undercut Australia’s influence with the Democrats at a time when Democrats control both houses of Congress.ref The Australian national TV program 7:30 Report said it was a "remarkable attack".ref. Howard did not attack other candidates for national leadership around the world. Nor do you hear other world leaders attack Obama, in any way, let alone with such words of fire. It is also rare that an Australian Prime Minister makes the US news in such a huge way, as this rundown shows -> ref:Howard stoush dominates US bulletins It was beyond conventional behaviour and no ordinary event. The references call it a "remarkable" event. People who hold alternate views should provide references to back up their argument. Lester 23:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Labor party condemned Howard? Really? Who would have thought? I think given that Obama is currently vying for the US Presidency, it would make sense to leave out the Obama section until after the US Presidency is resolved. I don't think it should be in at all, but I hope it is clear to everyone that including anything about Obama, Clinton or McCain at this time should be considered POV until proved otherwise. --Surturz (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. It should be noted that the quote is not discussed on the Barack Obama page. --Surturz (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Surturz, I note you have been troubled by edits about the Labor Party in the past, when you said "Wikipedia is not an advertisement for the ALP." The Labor Party is relevant because of the censure motion. How is any mention of Obama POV? Obama is a major historical figure, whichever way the US election goes.
Any mention of Obama in any WP article at the present time should IMHO be considered POV until proved otherwise. Gratuitous including the names of presidential candidates is advertising. --Surturz (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph about Howard's attack on Obama should be expanded, as he also attacked the United States Democrats. Howard basically said the Democrats are the party of terrorists. How can something that erupted into a political storm around on both sides of the pacific not be notable? We all know that this incident was responsible for changing the course of political debate in Australia during the lead-up to a national election, so how can that possibly not be notable?Lester 06:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, the Obama thing only lasted two days in the news. It did not create a "a political storm around on both sides of the pacific", evidenced by the fact that it does not appear in Obama's article. If you can get it to 'stick' in Barack Obama then perhaps you could make the case that it should be included here, but I bet you can't. My opinion is that it is a trivial event - Obama and Howard are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, so that they criticised each other is not interesting. There were no policy repercussions from it, the world was not different the next day, it does not merit inclusion. --Surturz (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Lester, could you please explain exactly how "this incident was responsible for changing the course of political debate in Australia"? cheers --Merbabu (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama incident RfC

A user has requested comment on biography for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCbio list}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

RfC outline, by user:Lester

On 7 May, 2008, a paragraph about US Presidential Candidate Barrack Obama was deleted from the article. You can view the original paragraph >>Here<< (Under the heading "US Relations"). An edit war ensued, and the article was locked (it happened to be locked while the disputed paragraph about Obama was not there). Should the paragraph about Obama be in the article? If so, should it be in its original wording, or would some rewording help? A previous discussion on this subject exists on the talkpage above this RfC notice. Input from previously uninvolved editors would be much appreciated. Thanks, Lester 22:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A survey would be useful to see how people are leaning.

Oh great - it's a poll. Let's focus on numbers, rather than reason. I decline. --Merbabu (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Surveys or polls are recommended as one of the steps in dispute resolution. See dispute resolution: conduct a survey. ► RATEL ◄ 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Counting noses of editors uninvolved in the article is of little use in resolving the underlying conflict. Arguments based on reason, common sense or wikipolicy are more likely to find consensus here. --Pete (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If you don't agree with Wikipedia policy, take it up with the management, bub, not me. ► RATEL ◄ 06:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ratel, you've come into this debate later than most so you may have missed the admin warning about uncivil remarks - ie, users will be blocked. Indeed, I know of one editor here who was subsequently warned personally. Many who may have been uncivil have since made an excellent effort to raise the standard here. Would be nice to keep it that way. "...take it up with the management, bub..." in my opinion is not particularly civil nor does it foster a spirit of collaboration, rather the opposite. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There was nothing uncivil in my remark, just an irritated tone. However, your earlier statement that I had set a poll in order to subvert the use of reason was offensive, given that WP policy encourages surveys in dispute resolution.► RATEL ◄ 04:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank those editors who came to this article to offer their comments as a result of the RfC. Particularly those who are independent of Australian politics, including Ratel, Renee and Jeremy, who I haven't seen editing Australian political articles before, and bring a new perspective. While polling numbers never finishes a debate, I think it's worth noting that both the majority of the regular Australian political editors and the majority of independent editors here for the RfC considered the Obama content sufficiently notable for inclusion...Lester 12:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, your RfC is floundering. All I see so far is handwaving and claims that are unable to be swallowed. Howard's remarks about Obama changed the face of Australian political debate, you say, but this remarkable event appears to have been overlooked in the wider world. Please ditch the hyperbole. --Pete (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
How was it "overlooked in the wider world"? This incident was covered in major newspapers everywhere: [1].► RATEL ◄ 04:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Please keep a neutral point of view, good faith and civil to users whether they are for or against your view. Bidgee (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
In response to user:Skyring(Pete) who disagrees that this political storm changed the direction of debate during an election year in Australia, this is how the media at the time covered it. For example, here is a reference from Rupert Murchoch's News Corporation describing just that (>link<). As before, I call on those who say the incident had no consequence to also provide references to back their argument. Every major news organisation in Australia and the United States covered it. Surely some would say that it would not affect John Howard's standing, or not affect US-Australia relations, if that were the case. It's time you need to provide references to back up that argument, or else that argument carries no weight. Lester 21:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see that the difficulty perhaps for some editors here is that the messengers in question make the news as much as report on it, because sensationalism sells papers, turns on TVs and radios and induces website visitation. HOwever, we are not in a position to judge the ultimate significance of the world as given by media. To an extent, we have to use our skills as editors to document mediatised events. In this instance, the issue is not whether or not it should be included, but how it is documented in this article. To compare it with an extreme example, take the Children Overboard case. Some might argue it changed the course of the election. But according to opinion polls the following year, it seemed that it would have made no difference to the way people voted if they'd known that John Howard had lied about the kids being thrown into the water. So, ultimately, the significance of the Children Overboard to the election may be argued to have been zero in the same way that some are now trying to argue that Howard's comment on Obama is insignificant. But such a positivist view of politics is not relevant here. The significance of such events lies in their contribution to the broader political discourses that characterise the persona of John Howard that is, or should be, the subject of a biographical piece in this encyclopedia. Eyedubya (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the source, Lester. On reading it, I see that yes indeed, "this political storm changed the direction of debate during an election year in Australia" (your words), but only in the sense that the media had a new story for a couple of days. May I again repeat my remarks about hyperbole? The fact is that once the story had run its course, a matter of hours rather than months or years, it lost any significance. Of course, that's just my view, but I can't find any published sources to the contrary. Handwaving in Wikipedia does not give an event lasting, encyclopaedic significance. Merbabu makes a good point above, asking why isn't this event mentioned in Obama's Wikipedia article, a point to which you did not respond, instead retracing the same familiar path which led us to this impasse, which nobody could describe as consensus. --Pete (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
A mention should be in the Obama article, but that's a different issue. It's an undeniable fact that from time to time the Howard/Obama spat gets mentioned in the major mainstream media, especially the United States media. References provided earlier show mentions of it in the past month or 2, which is well over a year since the incident occurred. The incident keeps lingering on in the media to this day, so it has had currency way beyond 2 days, which is more coverage than many other facts in the Howard article attain.Lester 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no mention of this supposedly world-shakingly significant event in the Obama article. There's all sorts of other stuff, but the editors working on this article didn't see fit to include it, and as far as I can see, they never even considered it. But if you think this incident should be in Obama's article, then by all means add it. The fact that it isn't in the Obama article when you think it should be weakens your argument here, I suggest.
You mention two current references. As you say, these were noted earlier in discussion, and as I have repeatedly pointed out, they were in the context of Rudd's relations with U.S. presidential candidates, not Howard's. Both lengthy articles devote a sentence or two to the Howard/Obama event. A minor tangential mention does not equate to anything much, though of course you are welcome to pretend that it does. Here they are again: 26 March 2008: Bruce Grant talking about Rudd and Obama. 1 April 2008 Washington Post on Rudd, Clinton, Bush and Obama.
May I also suggest that in this RfC, it is unhelpful to retrace old ground - those who wish to comment have to read the same argument and rebuttal over again, and will doubtless come to the same conclusion: hyperbole and handwaving. --Pete (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the Obama page does not mention the issue is immaterial. This is small beer in the life of Obama, the next President of the most powerful country on the planet, but it's highly significant in the life of a washed up polly from a tangentially important country on "the arse end of the world", to quote Paul Keating. ► RATEL ◄ 04:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Ratel has hit the nail on the head. It is totally irrelevant whether or not this incident is in the Obama article, because this is an article about John Howard and the things that are significant about him. Eyedubya (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For Exclusion

  • Exclude. The paragraph seems a bit extraneous in an article on a person's whole career. I'm sure he's said other things about other political candidates around the world, so it seems a bit gratuitous to put it in an encyclopedic article. The first paragraph about President Bush should stay though. Renee (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Exclude How is this notable? It occupied maybe two days in the press. All it demonstrates is Howard's commitment to military action in Iraq, which is obvious from the rest of the article. Stinks of trying to push a pro-Obama POV as he races for the White House --Surturz (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Exclude - I don't see it worthy of inclusion when considered in the scope of Howard's career (or Obama's)--Matilda talk 01:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Exclude no long term impact on the political fortune of either. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Exclude - do not see how this exchange is notable Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Exclude - Not notable. Shot info (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For Inclusion

  • Strong include — this is a notable hostile exchange between two major public figures.► RATEL ◄ 06:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong include - As stated by RATEL it's a notable exchange between two well known politicians and is also sourced. Bidgee (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong include - per nom, per above, and per talk:jh. Timeshift (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OUTSIDE OPINION It's cited and verifiable, and not creating a WP:COATRACK concern. It seems like a notable event, and is relevant to the context of the relationship of Howard and Bush, and hence, Howard and Bush's opponents. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Include. Per my prior comments/reasons stated (ie. extraordinary breach of politic convention of non-interference in the ordinary domestic political affairs of other countries, particularly allies). Skyring Pete keeps mentioning "lasting significance" -- which Wikipedia policy is that? --Brendan [ contribs ] 07:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Include It attracted international headlines, something Australian PMs don't normally do with their statements. Of course it didn't have a long term impact - nor do most things that are necessary to document in our political articles. I also tend to agree with Gnangarra's neutral comment below on all major respects. Orderinchaos 07:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Include Seems like a notable altercation to me. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Either way

  • Neutral Obama raising the issue well after JH left office is an indicator to it potentially affecting the Aus-US relationship. But there are still some ifs to lineup for Obama before we are able to judge what real effect it has. As Obama is a still within contention for the presidency it has currency I think its a sufficiently notable event for inclusion, but ultimately it maybe totally irrelevent. Gnangarra 05:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictures with George W Bush

Do we really need that many pictures of Howard with GW Bush? Are there not photos of him extant with other world leaders? --Surturz (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Surturz. It may have something to do with the US government being more open about making their images free, whereas it's difficult to get images from the Australian government that are copyright free. Lester 05:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Surely its representative of the special affection they have for each other rather than anything so bureaucratic? Eyedubya (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Surturz. There are too many pics of him and George W Bush. Just because other appropriate pics may (or may not) be hard to get, doesn't mean we need to overload on the Dubya pics. one is ample. --Merbabu (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree - one very large one. Eyedubya (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Decent images are hard to come by, but images enhance the article. If you take out the Bush ones, there may not be good replacements that are free. Probably user:Timeshift knows about this matter.Lester 10:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again, that it might be difficult to get other pics does not mean we need to load the article up with Dubya pics. Where's the connection? --Merbabu (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, you're right. No pics of JH and Dubya - in a year's time, no-one will remember who the latter was either. So, let's just have some pictures of men in balaclavas, the sinking boat and those people on the Tampa. Oh, and a picture of the actual author of many of JH's best policies - Pauline Hanson. Eyedubya (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Who said no pictures? I suggested one was sufficient, rather than three. --Merbabu (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. I guess it'd have to be the portrait of Hanson then, since JH embodied her ideas so well. Eyedubya (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Only the US government put their images out in the public domain. If you come across any images with an appropriate license that you believe are of comparable quality, please show us because i'd be interested to know of them. Timeshift (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should leave the US images in the article until someone has the time to replace them with alternate copyright free images. Lester 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with leaving those images there too for the time being. However, I think the source of the images could be stated more clearly for readers who aren't as familiar with the coding system. Eyedubya (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
coding system? The source of the images are clear. Example 1, Example 2. All US govt sourced images will have the PD-USGov or PD-USGov-Military tag depending on the US govt source, with a link to the image source page. Am I missing something? Also, I think we've done pretty well to only have 3 of 11 images containing GWB, considering his photos tend to come from US govt sources. Rudd has done pretty well so far in terms of getting out in the community and getting photos of him uploaded to flickr. Howard has nothing on Rudd in terms of flickr images. So if that's the comparison, it's unfair. Timeshift (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly - those are abbreviations that are only found when looking through the file history. In cases like this, the following words could appear below the image as it appears in the article: "Source: US Government" or some such (i.e. just like RL publications in other words). Eyedubya (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the point just to satisfy the few that don't understand why US images are usually dominant. Timeshift (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Timeshift has the right of it. I don't personally like the US Government images - something about the colours, perhaps. They just seem a bit odd. But they are free, and if anybody has any better ones, or a free source for same, then by all means put them up. We shouldn't have to explain Wikipedia policy on images in every article. Adam Carr went to a great deal of effort to gain approval for us to use images from the parliamentary wbsites for all MPs, but these didn't satisfy the weewilliewikis and got removed. --Pete (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The WP:MOS for image is not to place author information in the caption. All the relevant and necessary legal information is on the image page. Gnangarra 05:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, so in addition to the Obama-Howard tiff and the colour of Howard’s undies through which we’ve decided that verifiability (and not notability) is the only criteria for inclusion, we now also have “if it’s easy, let’s include it with no other considerations necessary” policy. What’s easy cannot determine what we produce. If we applied this analogy to eating, then no one would bother preparing good home meals, but go to take away for every meal. That’s logical, but gets a bad outcome. But, let’s go with the “if it’s easy, that’s all we need to consider” logic and we could then revise WP:IMAGE to:

  • Threshold for inclusion of pictures is they must be relevant, address the article and be illustrative rather than decorative…etc
  • Alternatively, they can be US govt sourced with no other considerations necessary.

So, the consensus is, it's OK to have as 3 pics of Howard and Bush because they are easy to get? Great - reaching for the stars of quality again here. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone else is complaining of that, aside from the original post that didn't understand why other world leaders couldn't appear on the page. They are the best we have until better images are found. We are satisfied as much as we can be with the current images. Timeshift (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Well, since they are so well loved, when the page is re-opened I will keep two, not one as I suggested initially. My thinking is clearly different to some here - if no good images are available, I’d rather have no images instead of poor images. Same with lack of article content: in my apparent minority opinion, that is not an excuse to fill things up with bad or even POV content. But hey, I have two solutions: (a) I’ve just got to lower my expectations of quality to meet “consensus”, and/or (b) accept that the best way to drum home the Bonsai factor is to load the article up with Bush images. --Merbabu (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
But you have no consensus to do so. Timeshift (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll doubt we will find free-use photos of John Howard with other World Leaders as most Governments and Press are copyright conscious. Bidgee (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, so let's get more Bush images in. And, there are some good US Govt pics of stealth bombers - that can emphasise Howard's war monger factor. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how the current photos are an issue? It's not like there is a whole page of John Howard and G.W Bush which then it could become an issue. Bidgee (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, 30% of photos have George Bush in it. 3 out of 5 from the Prime Minister section have George Bush. --Merbabu (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see what the issue is. Bidgee (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to spin the numbers. The (large) article contains 11 pictures, 3 of them with GWB, one including Howard's wife and another one which has Howard being an "everyman" in the Sydney streets, albiet with GWB. The third you only see the back of GWBs head. Sheesh, concentration of efforts on finding free images rather than objecting to current ones would be a good start. Timeshift (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Menzies has 7 photos. No way should Howard have more than Menzies, whatever their content. When the bruhaha has died down, and the content issues are put into perspective, this article will get a lot shorter and there will only be about 4 or 5 images max that are needed.Eyedubya (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm - not sure about the Menzies comparison, but on your 2nd more general comment, I agree completely. It seems content is suffering from a lack perspective. It will improve in time. --Merbabu (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ditto for perspective on the Paul Keating article. --Merbabu (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The number of images on a PM page is not in proportion to their time served. What a silly notion. Timeshift (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Who said it had anything to do with time served? Eyedubya (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Then what was your Menzies/7 photos point? Timeshift (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Significance to Australia and to John HOward himself. Eyedubya (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The article needs more pictures, especially from Howard's early years in government, from 1975 to 1990. I've got no idea where we could source such images from, but it would improve the article to have images from this era.Lester 23:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Most articles need more relevant pictures, and your point is no exception to this. If anyone comes across them i'd like to see them. But I doubt this will happen. 1975-1990 is within 50 years (is in copyright) so only images that are explicitly free domain or equivelent can be used, and considering this was the pre-flickr, mainly pre-internet period... good luck! Timeshift (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Howard as Treasurer and Opposition Leader was how the people saw him when they voted for him instead of the other guy in 1996. Looking at the US-based images we've got, they aren't too bad. The one where he's laughing with Bush seems apposite - he always took pleasure in his relationship with GWB. I don't think we should have any more US images unless someone unearths a really top-notch one. But what alternatives do we have? The locally-sourced pic of him at a party fundraiser isn't much chop, really.
There must be plenty of reasonable photographs taken by the public in recrent years. People who encountered him out on one of his morning walks, for example. The media is (or was) full of images of JH in sweatsuit, trundling along by Lake Blue-Green or Sydney Harbour. Why can't we have one like this? --Pete (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If you or anyone have a free equivelent, i'd be more than happy for it to be added. But per above... Timeshift (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Add tag, page protected for other disputes, there were no conflicts over images. Original post - Hopefully this solution is ample for all. Replace the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_howard#US_relations with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:RichardsonHowardShergold.jpg and in my travels I also found http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:HowardCohen97.jpg to add to his first term section, a free image from 1997. As the page is protected, if an admin could make these changes it would be appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the protection so you can do it yourself. CIreland (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. There are now two Bush photos. Timeshift (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Cheers :-) --Merbabu (talk) 05:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring again

As soon as the ban is removed everyone starts changing to their own likes and dislikes again. Have we learnt nothing? Why are we changing without talk page discussion or concensus? I find the admin participation in this particularly disgusting. Shame. Timeshift (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You and I seem to be one of the few not clicking that undo button. It's no fun, is it? ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I (we) exercise restraint. Some people would appear to be incapable of doing so. Timeshift (talk)
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY Consensus is needed to INSERT material into the article. It isn't needed to remove it. If people would stick to inserting material that everyone agrees should be in there, rather than trying to force in stuff that fits their own POV, everyone will be a lot happier. --Surturz (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that when an article is as contentious as this one that all modifications should be taken with due care and partisanship wherever possible should be avoided. WP:CENSOR applies here as well. Orderinchaos 07:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
While i tend to also agree with Surturz here, there comes a point when we must consider whether our energies are being best spent debating the merits or otherwise of such a small part of an article, and an even smaller part of wikipedia. Again - we all need to get perspective. If it won't happen now, we can return in a few years and see how (most likely) trivial this Obama spat has been. --Merbabu (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What? You agree that those adding referenced content need to first ask permission from everyone? I haven't seen that in the Wikipedia rules. Lester 05:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Kk, so I commented on Lester's talk page here, if anyone's interested. A user requested that this page be locked again because people were warring; instead of doing the same old boring thing, I'd like to try something new. I won't lock the page. Instead, we'll come to a compromise before people start making edits to the article in whichever way they fancy. This way, we'll settle the issue before we put it on paper, so to speak, and then nobody will have anything to edit war over. At least, I hope that's how this goes. If people continue to edit war I'll just protect the page for a month and we'll try again in June. If anyone would like to talk to me about this (or just say hi) you're welcome to drop by my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Master of Puppets. I welcome your contribution and mediation. Much appreciated. However, I think discussion of the topic is probably best out here on the discussion page, rather than on my talk page, to involve everyone. That is, unless it is private (which the talk page isn't really anyway). Regards, Lester 05:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
My concern is that reverting occurs when content is added that may be perceived as negative to John Howard. When positive content is added, the reversions do not occur. Remember the last Wikipedia headline in the Sydney Morning Herald. I think the process continues. 06:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This will not work. You cannot expect talk page comments before anything is added. Not to mention all the people who edit without reading all the talk page contents (let alone this bit), it simply will not work. Unless you can cite a wikipedia policy that endorses your action, it is not a valid process. Timeshift (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about a certain group of editors here, namely Lester and Skyring (who I contacted on their talk pages), not every editor who's ever going to visit this page. This is because they edit warred before; the page was locked. Now they're doing it again. And while normally, you're right, one can't expect for consensus to be developed before anything is even implemented, I think it's safe to say that I can expect it when I ask for cooperation in a small group of people. The way this works is like so;
  1. Someone proposes a draft of the controversial edit
  2. Others give feedback
  3. After everyone is content, it is added to (or maybe omitted from) the article
Sounds simple, right? Also, there isn't really a policy for this situation; at base it's just dispute resolution/mediation. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 12:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that there seems to be a level of partisan bias in some of the things being done with this article, none of which are helping it reach for higher glories (GA, FA etc). The incident in question was one of the very few occasions when Howard headlined internationally during the 2007 election campaign, so there's no question about notability as suggested by one of the removing edit summaries. My views on the recentism of this article in parts are well known but we fix that by filling out the older bits, not by selectively cropping the new bits (unless they are genuinely contestable). Orderinchaos 07:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm, but you could say exactly the same about Kevin Rudd's earwax. Hugely notable. Still getting traction in the media. But where is the encyclopaedic significance? --Pete (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, consensus is required to remove when it is disputed, IT IS THAT SIMPLE. And I notice the admin who is, as always, trigger-happy with the undo button without any talk page consensus, hasn't bothered to reply. Neither would I. Disgusting. And these are supposed to be neutral people who don't get involved in disputes... these are admins, and they should not be getting personally involved in edit disputes, let alone after an article is just unblocked after one. Timeshift (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The history is that material concerning the Howard/Obama tiff was inserted into the article when it was fresh news, well over a year ago. It was promptly removed, and after ensuing discussion, not reinserted. A year passes and Lester inserts similar material. The situation since then, of edit-warring, personal attacks, page protection, RfC etc amply demonstrates that there is no consensus in support of Lester's inclusion. We haven't yet got to the stage of finding consensus to remove it, because it has never lasted long enough to be considered a part of the article.
I notice a comment above, querying the phrase "lasting significance". Isn't that exactly what diferentiates an encyclopaedia from a collection of newsmedia stories? --Pete (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did ask what Wikipedia policy you are basing your stated requirement of "lasting significance" on. Can you please indicate the policy? --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

JH/BO interchange; suggested edits

In keeping with the advice from admin Master of Puppets, here is my proposed edit, short, accurate and succinct.

In February 2007, Howard said that al Qaeda should pray for an Obama and Democratic win in the 2008 U.S. Presidential race.[1] Obama retorted that if Howard was so keen to fight in Irag, he should send another 20,000 Australian troops there.[2]

  1. ^ Australian Premier Defends Remark On Obama, Terror. Washington Post. Retrieved on 2008-05-24.
  2. ^ "Obama hits back after Australian PM slams his Iraq stance", CNN, 2007-02-12. Retrieved on 2008-05-07. 

I really cannot see why there is a huge argument about it. It happened, it was in the papers, we all remember it, I heard about it while living in the USA, so it's notable enough to be included. Come on fellas, two sentences? Let it go. ► RATEL ◄ 16:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You also would have heard about Kevin Rudd's earwax-eating video. I really cannot see why there is a huge argument about it. It happened, it was in the papers, we all remember it, you heard about it while living in the USA, so it's notable enough to be included. Hmmm?
The reality of writing an encyclopaedia is that we try not to include trivia. The Howard/Obama tiff was a three day news story and in over a year since then nobody in the world outside Wikipedia has gone on record stating that it was significant. Just like Rudd's earwax consumption. Except the earwax incident was a far bigger story. --Pete (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Pete, that's a fatuous comment, if you don't mind me saying so. How can you compare a personal grooming foible with a statement from JH that casts aspersions on a potential leader of another country and represents an unprecedented partisan interference by an Australian leader in the US political debate? You are grasping at straws, and it's looking a little foolish from where I am sitting. ► RATEL ◄ 00:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I do mind you saying so, actually. Please be civil. I'd also appreciate it if you refrained from leaving insulting messages on my talkpage.
I'm not comparing the two incidents at all. I make no comments in that direction, although a perceptive person would infer that I regard the earwax incident as trivia. I merely use your own words to demonstrate that your argument works equally well for something you claim is unimportant as for something you claim is significant. The earwax-eating video gained massive coverage around the world, international headlines, etc. It meets or exceeds the very criteria you used to claim the Howard/Obama thing as notable.
Yet you are now saying that one incident is trivial and another significant, even though the media coverage indicates the reverse. You are apparently using criteria other than the media coverage you at first relied upon. Could you please outline what criteria you are now using, and we can perhaps use this as a basis for progress? --Pete (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This does hit it on the head, using the criteria others consider for "trivia" which we all agree should be excluded, means that the same criteria cannot be used for the inclusion of other information. However where is the third party sources (rather than the secondary sources) showing us the notability of the various subjects? Shot info (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As to notability, I already told you why it's notable. Please list the times Australian PMs have made such comments about US leaders and leaders-to-be. Thanks. Then we can decide if this is an everyday occurrence or something as trivial as picking one's nose. Lastly, ask yourself if a reader who knows nothing about Howard would like to be apprised of the fact that he made this anti-Obama comment or not. Would it enlarge a new reader's view of Howard as a man? Of course it would, and of course any reader would like to know about the one time Howard and Obama shared a headline together. Stop being so goddamned petty and partisan about this, for heaven's sake! This is an encyclopedia, not a memorial to Mr Howard. ► RATEL ◄ 01:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's look at your new criteria, using that earwax-eating incident as a basis. Please list the times Australian PMs have publicly eaten their own earwax. Then we can decide if this is an everyday occurrence, or something as rare as picking one's nose. Lastly, ask yourself if a reader who knows nothing about Rudd would like to be apprised of the fact that he eats his own earwax or not. Just how many hits did that YouTube video get again? And lastly, could you please be civil in discussion? --Pete (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does Pete/Skyring keep bringing up earwax? I did a search on this page for 'earwax'... some might say he is obsessed with the issue. It has already been thrashed out and was clearly ruled non-noteable by editors. Get over it. Timeshift (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You have hit the nail on the head. Rudd's earwax eating is trivial, despite the massive media coverage. We're all agreed. Therefore we can use it as a test to see if an argument for inclusion is valid or not. If we use the same argument, the same criteria, the same measures, and two events pass the test and one is clearly non-notable, then what does that tell us about the other? And about the quality of argument? Fair's fair. --Pete (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
But what overrules all? That the wikipedia community ultimately decides what it includes. The fact earwax is unanimously rejected speaks for its noteworthyness. The Obama issue is around half each, and mostly along party lines I note, especially admins. Timeshift (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
But you surely don't mind if I highlight poor arguments, flaws in logic, etc? That's a good thing, yeah? --Pete (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
No, because unlike you we dont work in absolutes. We can see that dissing another country's government or government to be is different from wax-eating which affects nobody and is thus not significant. News articles themselves dont claim noteability, the objective views of wikipedia users do. Case in point, that fanta-pants Corey kid, who still makes the news, that wikipedia rejected as not noteworthy. Use your noodle Pete. Timeshift (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, that's exactly what I've been saying. Mention in the media doesn't make something significant. But this seems to have been the foundation upon which other editors have crafted their high and lofty opinions, repeatedly expressed here. Looking at your fresh criteria, that the Wikipedia community decide what goes in and what stays out, that's a little vague and gut-feelingish, but still something we can work with. Unanimous rejection and it stays out. OK. You say "the Obama issue is around half each..." and you are using this as a basis for inclusion. Since when did divided opinion count as a reason to include something? May I direct your attention to WP:CONSENSUS? --Pete (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is part of a long process, not the end of the process. Not all processes work. This has also been established. And I didn't say that news articles dont provide the basis for noteability, I said articles alone don't make something automatically noteable. Contributors have used the news articles to base their noteability arguments on which is completely valid and the norm for establishing noteability. Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Timeshift (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Not too sure about your bringing gun-owners into the debate. Is that some sort of veiled threat?
So just how do you propose to go about finding consensus? I've shot down all the arguments advanced for inclusion, and in the end it boils down to individual opinions of wikipedia editors, it seems. I've already proposed that we see if we can find some published opinions from outside the Wikipedia community, in the same way that we don't rely on original research as a basis for inclusion. The only opinions on significance the inclusionists have been able to find date from the three days when it was a news story, and that was fifteen months ago. Turning again to that earwax, we can find similar opinions as to significance, with commentators saying the footage "could do more damage to (his) election chances than any policy blitz". I say that time is a good measure of significance. Like the earwax, the Howard/Obama tiff has faded away into insignificance. Except in the hearts of a handful of Wikipedia editors. --Pete (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
And that return to your unjustified uninformed i'm right you're wrong attitude is where I leave this discussion. Good day. Timeshift (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"shot down all the arguments for inclusion", Pete? I disagree. There does however appear to have been volumes of the usual handwaving, self-authored "policy" (ie. your arbitrary opinion on lasting significance) and no actual engagement with the substantive bases stated for inclusion. Ratel's wording at the top of this section is factual and concise. The events in question were demonstrably notable and relevant. Why do you want to censor this straightforward fact from this article? --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but perhaps if you could do more than just state "demonstrably notable"? Isn't that handwaving? Perhaps you could demonstrate the notability. In a way that excludes earwax, of course. --Pete (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Earwax? While Kevin Rudd picking his earwax received widespread coverage, it did not receive quality coverage. It was shown on programs like The Tonight Show and also David Letterman, and other low grade chat and comedy shows. Maybe some local small-town TV outlets in the US might have run it. Kevin Rudd's earwax incident did not make it onto NBC Nightly News. It did not make it into the The Washington Post political columns. Lets stop trivialising a political incident (Howard/Obama) with a video that was used for laughs on comedy shows. Howard's unprecedented attack on Obama showed that Howard was willing to risk the US/Australian relations to prove his point.Lester 03:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's opinion is "Howard's unprecedented attack on Obama showed that Howard was willing to risk the US/Australian relations to prove his point."? It's just like saying "this incident was responsible for changing the course of political debate in Australia", which I asked earlier if you could back up. Please try and drop the apparent hyperbole. --Merbabu (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
To Merbabu. What do you mean it's "my opinion"? I did find you the references which described the Obama/Howard incident in similar words to that. I'm shocked that after all this talk that it appears you have not read the references I provided to back up my argument, whilst strenuously arguing that there are no notable references. Which means I am spending time to prepare arguments to be sent into the ether! Lester 06:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I broadly support Ratel's wording at the beginning of this section. Succinct and factual. It is eminently notable and significant that a former Australian Prime Minister spontaneously declared that a particular popular US Presidential contender (and opponent of the party of the incumbent with whom said PM has been remarkably close) would benefit Al-Qaeda and terrorism. That statement echoed around the world and its subject was not trivial (unlike earwax). I think this information would be well positioned amongst text describing the reported closeness of the Howard-Bush alliance and the correlation in policy positions relating to national security and others. --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a trivial spat of no lasting significance. As we can easily tell by the fact that it has long since sunk into insignificance. Giving this three day news story the same prominence as the long and close friendship of Bush and Howard makes no sense. Bush and Howard's relationship altered history and took our nation to war. Howard and Obama did what together? Create a headline or two? Pah! --Pete (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That dismissiveness is the same dismissiveness that saw Howard declare the US Democratic Party the terrorist's party of choice and given the chance to take it back he didn't. If Rudd said the Republicans were the terrorist's party of choice, all the conservatives would never let it down, for "destroying" the US-Aus alliance. And your three days in the news waffle is disappointing, as are your overall attempts at chasing the lost cause of non-noteability. Timeshift (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Find me the earwax equivelent Pete. :-) Timeshift (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

One request; can we stop discussing earwax? :P
Now, Skyring, you're right that it may seem trivial in the scheme of things, but it's still a pretty big incident. I don't think only things that cause war to break out or last for months should be mentioned; even a small thing like this would create quite a political rash. We're looking at the significance of Howard's statement, and it should be mentioned, I think.
It seems policy has some stuff to say about this. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states that all biographical material must be three things; it must be verifiable, neutral and not original. Good so far; as Pete has informed us already, the earwax incident falls into that category. However, if we look at the criticism and praise section, it clearly states that something relevant to the subject's notability, as long as it is well-sourced and neutrally written, should be allowed into the article. Now, since I hate relying solely on policy, I also have some personal thoughts on this specific issue. The earwax incident, while widely reported, is not in the same vein as the Howard-Obama one. Earwax will hardly strain international relations between developed countries, and it won't affect the political environment at all, which is why even though it was highly documented, it shouldn't get more than a passing mention. However, when one leading political figure makes a very controversial statement against another (hell, JH is accusing Obama of being terrorist-like in his policies; since when do prime ministers make uncivil comments like that?), it should be mentioned as that's something that will not be taken lightly.
Anyway, I support the inclusion of the topic sentence. Also, Skyring, if you have any policy that you think supports your argument, could you please cite it? For now, I'd support the inclusion of the paragraph, as there isn't any solid argument against it. Let's give Skyring a chance to reply first, of course. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"since when do prime ministers make uncivil comments like that?" I refer you to Paul Keating, Howard's immediate predecessor. Kevin Rudd has barely warmed the Prime Ministerial chair - let's see how he goes when the pressure builds.
The argument that came closest to persuading me was Lester's. His excellent research skills unearthed reliable commentary from respected political journalists in quality sources. While I doubt that The Washington Post carried the story on its front page, there is no doubt that the likes of Michelle Grattan and Paul Kelly are widely read and regarded amongst the powered classes in Australia. But, when you get down to it, it was a story good for one mention each from these folk, and it has had no currency in the fifteen months since, barring a couple of tangential mentions in other contexts.
However, it is the tactics of the inclusionists that truly convince me that it is not worthy of inclusion. Incivility aside, the amount of handwaving and hyperbole has been phenomonal, even for a discussion page like this one. A good item for inclusion in a biographical article does not need to be puffed up way beyond its actual impact. It stands on its merits.
But you ask for policy, and the wikipolicy on which I rely is our fundamental one of consensus. Lester's inclusion of this material after a year of uncontested rejection has done nothing but create heated debate, edit-warring and disruption. The absolute best that the inclusionists can say is that opinion is divided. That is a long way from consensus. --Pete (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Where's the earwax Pete? How silly does it look that wikinews has an article on the incident but wikipedia does not have a passing mention? Timeshift (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
For my 10 cents, I'd just like to say thart I wholeheartedly support the re-wording of this item as proposed at the top of this section. Its surprising how much time and energy has been given to sophistry about earwax. Its been a complete distraction. The relevance of the JH/BO item to this article cannot be judged by making comparisons with other BLPs - people are unique, the whole point of a biography is to document those things that make that person who they are. The place to discuss the relevance of the earwax incident is on Kevin Rudd's article, not here. The place to discuss the relevance of the JH/BO incident to Obama is in the Obama article, not here. Note however that we have seen this kind of sophistry before in the dispute about Howard's non-attendance at the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. There it was asserted that Howard's non-attendance was irrelevant to Howard's biography because it was actually all 'about' Kevin Rudd. Many editors we're sucked into 'proving' the relevance of Howard's non-attendance in the face of the line that since it was all about Kevin Rudd, it didn't belong in Howard's article. The logic might appear different, but works the same way: it draws editors into an argument that is not about the article in question, but about a different article and its content. While I am sure that such arguments are offered in good faith, their flaws need to be pointed out so that they can be recognised for what they are. Eyedubya (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Timeshift, I've repeatedly agreed that it was a news story. Nobody ever said different. What we are discussing is whether it should go in our encyclopaedia. Wikinews and Wikipedia are two different things: one for news, the other for reference. Thanks for your input. --Pete (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
What you fail to argue is why it belongs on one but not the other. You believe earwax belongs but US government or government-to-be bashing doesn't. Timeshift (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think I have to argue the difference between a newspaper and an encyclopaedia for your benefit. If you don't have anything useful to say here, please refrain from stirring the pot, if not the possum. --Pete (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems clear enough: earwax is news; Howard calling the Democrats and Obama the Terrorist's party of choice is material for a biographical article in an encyclopedia. Thanks to SkyRing for clarifying these distinctions. Eyedubya (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The frustrating part of this is that the main people arguing for deletion of the Obama affair do not recognise or concede when others answer their complaints. Over a year ago, Skyring(Pete) argued that the test of whether a story had currency is whether it would be around in a few months. Over a year later we cite recent news and editorial mentions of it, answering Skyring(Pete)'s criteria. Earlier in this thread, Skyring(Pete) said that we should listen to esteemed political commentators like Paul Kelly and Michelle Grattan. I found references from both, fulfilling Skyring(Pete)'s criteria. Now Skyring(Pete) continues to refer to Kevin Rudd's earwax problem as being similar. I already provided a reference article above about the coverage that the Obama/Howard incident received in the United States, where it ranked #2 story on ABC World News Tonight, the flagship US news bulletin. Earwax never made it to that program at all, ever. The earwax argument is over. The Obama incident has been proven to be in a different category as far as notability goes. Lester 05:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a systemic issue here which is concurrently occuring at Talk:Malcolm Fraser. Timeshift (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
By systemic I understand you to mean that a pattern of conflict over editing is being repeated across two or more articles. Is that correct? Is this time for another RfC? Eyedubya (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Futility is the word of the day. Timeshift (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Lester, you keep on putting words in my mouth. And I keep on spitting them out. I've rebutted your points above several times over, but you seem incapable of accepting any views but your own perfect opinion. How many times do we have to go around the same weary circle? The bottom line, surely, is that some people think the incident is trivial, some people think that it is significant, we have no consensus for inclusion and continuing to chase our tales is disruptive. And, thank you Timeshift, futile. --Pete (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
SkyRing has described the predicament we're facing very well. If there was a little more chewing of the words of others, then some swallowing followed by thorough digestion, we might get somewhere. Merely spitting out what is offered is to reject any kind of actual engagement or dialogue. As to which editors offer wholesome, tasty and nutritious fare and which tend to serve up 2-minute noodles, I shall leave for the judgement of others. Eyedubya (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.