Talk:John Howard/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

← Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12 →

Contents 1 Pictures with George W Bush 2 More on the images 3 Edit warring again 4 JH/BO interchange; suggested edits 5 Leadership and retirement doubts 6 Obama edit war 6.1 The community 6.2 Edit war suggestion 6.3 What is consensus? 7 Obama Compromise Solutions 7.1 Compromise #2 7.2 Compromise #3 7.3 Compromise #4 7.4 Compromise #5 7.5 Compromise #6 7.6 Compromise #7 7.6.1 Silence does not = consent to compromise suggestions 8 Re-adding of Obama material 9 Obama incident RfC 9.1 RfC outline, by user:Lester 9.2 For Exclusion 9.3 For Inclusion 9.4 Either way 9.5 Request for Mediation 10 +450 troops removed 11 Edit war must stop 12 POV Tag

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)

More on the images

Could someone more skilled than I move the picture of Howard and GWB (walking together) up to the "US relations" section? It fits the narrative better in that position. I had a go at it, but it resulted in a lot of whitespace for me, because the section is short, and the pic is tall. --Surturz (talk) 02:27, 27 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)

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.

← Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12 →

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)

Leadership and retirement doubts

I think this section of the article could now be compressed. Its blow-by-blow detail was appropriate while Howard was in parliament, but now that he is out I think it could be more brief. I think the key points for inclusion would be:

• It was expected that he would retire and hand over to Peter Costello
• There was significant evidence that he promised the leadership to Costello prior to becoming PM
• He didn't retire, and when he lost government Peter Costello refused the leadership

Thoughts, anyone? --Surturz (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the current stalemate and edit war regarding the Obama incident needs to be resolved before we can move on to other areas of the article. Lester 00:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a major news story for years, but now of academic interest. We can summarise it with a few good sources, I think. --Pete (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I ask that this issue be held back until after the Obama issue is resolved, as it's impossible to follow what other edits are taking place amidst an edit war. Lester 00:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am absolutely certain the editors of this page are of an intellectual capacity great enough to manage more than one section of the article at a time. There is nothing to stop us improving the rest of the article while the Obama disagreement is resolved. Putting the whole article on hold for one section is stupid. --Surturz (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps dumb, rather than stupid. Now, how does Peter Costello handle the issue? If it follows the pattern of other articles, there will be a lot of irrelevant Howard-bashing, but we can still work on both articles in tandem. However, for Costello the leadership question is still an open one, whereas it is unlikely that Howard will be recalled by his party to take over from Nelson. --Pete (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it deserves more space on the Costello page, because he is still in parliament. Perhaps we can have a short summary here and a link to that page for more detail? Is it acceptable in WP to have something like "For more detail, see Peter Costello"? --Surturz (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We often have "portal" articles that contain sections, each headed by something like "Main article wikilink", so I can't see any problem with that. If we keep the existing refs in the Howard article, then future readers can still get the full meat of the saga by following the links. It's more of a Costello thing anyway - he slaved away trying to get the numbers and cultivating the press, and each time speculation mounted, Howard would call a press conference, say he was staying on for a bit longer, and Costello would grit his teeth and not do anything. At least Keating had the balls to force the issue against Hawke. --Pete (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I agree with you there. A pity Costello did not have the faith in himself to challenge. --Surturz (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The notion that editing this article should stop because of the Obama issue is absurd. Rather, the opposite should be encouraged. In fact, so absurd I'm really annoyed now. I strongly recommend the suggestion be ignored. --Merbabu (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with the link to the Peter Costello as presently at the head of the the section. A wikilink within the section will do. The section could be summarised - I have no difficulty with the present form of words but the wikilinks are not in the right order.--Matilda ^talk 02:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section needs pruning as per User:Surfurz suggestions. I see no need to wait until the Obama material is settled. Eyedubya (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama edit war

In February, 2007, Australian Prime Minister John Howard made an audacious leap over the lines that regularly mark out conventional diplomatic behaviour, and verbally attacked US presidential candidate Barack Obama.ref The incident drew a furious response from Obama and other US politicians, and attracted worldwide media coverage. For example it dominated US news bulletins, ranking number #2 story on the American ABC Networks's World News Tonight.ref Some commentators perceived Howard's actions to have sullied the integrity of another country's political process.ref Wikipedia discussions on the subject have now been archived. The most recent discussion, from May 2008, can be found in the archive >>Here<<, where the majority of editors were in favour of keeping the Obama incident in the Howard biography. An earlier discussion from February 2007 can be found >>Here<<, where the majority of editors were in favour of keeping the Obama incident in the Howard biography. Despite majority support on both occasions, the matter was eventually decided by edit waring.

• 01:33, 14 February 2007 (deleted just 15 minutes after it was first added!)
• 00:41, 8 May 2008
• 01:27, 8 May 2008
• 04:23, 8 May 2008
• 18:13, 9 May 2008
• 09:46, 10 May 2008
• 22:47, 12 May 2008
• 00:44, 13 May 2008
• 04:36, 23 May 2008
• 04:56, 23 May 2008
• 05:49, 26 May 2008
• 06:01, 26 May 2008
• 06:16, 26 May 2008
• 06:27, 26 May 2008
• 00:42, 27 May 2008
• 17:37, 27 May 2008
• 04:17, 28 May 2008

It should be on record that this issue was decided not by discussion of concensus, but solely through edit waring, without consensus, as the majority of editors were in favour of keeping the content. Those prepared to edit war the hardest get their way. Is that how Wikipedia content issues should be resolved? Lester 05:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You need consensus. We list six for exclusion, seven for inclusion, one neutral. And you haven't counted my nose when you claim a majority. No majority, no consensus, no inclusion. Please don't resume edit-warring. --Pete (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A number of people like me didn't vote b/c it was clear what we thought and the aim was to get the views of others. HOwever, if you're going pitch in, then so will I. That gives the inclusionsists the majority. Eyedubya (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Harping on" is a form of WP:DE. Shot info (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why it shouldn't be included - consensus is not the only policy on Wikipedia, and a lack of consensus for or against means that other policies should be looked to for guidance. Additionally, such decisions are not a vote, and at least one of the includes I have not seen before at this article or project even so, so the numbers are an unsafe business on which to proceed regardless. As it meets WP:V, WP:N, does not fail WP:OR or WP:BLP I have opted to reinclude it. Noone has actually presented a strong argument against inclusion. Orderinchaos 05:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! No-one has actually produced single view from outside a small coterie of exclusionists on WP that this is not significant, while there is plenty of reliable, verifiable opinion out there that it matters. Eyedubya (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not significant. That's why it doesn't belong in the article. It was a news story, not something that belongs in a biography. The relationship between Bush and Howard is significant, no question. Between Howard and Obama? Hardly. Fifteen months on, where's the effects? Apart from on this talk page, of course.--Pete (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not about the relationship between JH and BO - its about John HOward's politics and the lengths he'll go to prosecute his views - and the article is about John Howard, right? Eyedubya (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Almost *all* political events are of fleeting and non-durable significance. I'd be amazed if anyone can remember Troy Buswell 10 years from now, or Kevin Rudd's stripper incident. Most can't remember the 10 point plan and Wik and the whole debate even now (10 years on from when it happened), despite that being a highly significant event in the indigenous affairs portfolio. I think the Wilson Tuckey article contains some random stuff of no import from a few years ago, but it happened. Some of the stuff we're writing about in WA politics happened 70 years ago and has been largely forgotten since. This sort of argument simply doesn't wash when we're dealing with an event-driven subject. Undue weight and avoiding OR and BLP are the main considerations I bring to political subjects, and I believe recentism is a curse that afflicts Wikipedia in a major way - I'd actually like to see much of this article in a separate article on the Howard Government (not sure how to title or structure it though) and a lot more older stuff from the treasury and first period of opposition, as it dwells almost minutely on 2004-2007 even though that was his least effective term in office. Orderinchaos 06:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll get my support for that - the BLP bit needs to separated from the collectivist elements about the govt. Eyedubya (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There has to be a threshold for significance, otherwise we include every little event, every news item, every editorial. Opinion is clearly divided on this incident, as shown by the poll above. You can't just slam your fist down on the table and say it is significant, when others are of strong opinion to the contrary. --Pete (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, and neither can you. Pot, meet kettle. Timeshift (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hence why we have WP:CONSENSUS. To bad "one side" of the debate is quick to point fingers and make vague accusations of "political coverups" (etc.) while the other is just trying to follow the rules. Always interesting to see what is included in those not of their political alligence, while excluding that from those matching theirs :-) Shot info (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there has been a bit of that going on. The sad part is that most of this dispute has *nothing to do* with the Obama controversy, but is yet another opportunity for the left and right to fire at each other for no apparent reason. The right-leaning editors in this dispute are as being as unreasonable as the left-leaning ones were about copra plantations a couple of months ago, and it's about time the nonsense stopped. This is an encyclopaedia, not a battleground. The fact admins of all political colours have showed up here with a similar view regarding the general state of discussion and action here should be saying something. Orderinchaos 07:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The copra thing is a classic piece of POV pushing. The consensus was for a new article with the pertinant information, yet there was much screaming by those familar to us all that it needed to go into this article or else the sun wouldn't come up in the morning. Strangely enough, again, one side was pushing policy, the other pushing their POV. And when it all was settled, the consensus was ... once again ... against the POV pushers and it is in an appropriate article. Now you would think those POV pushers would have learnt something from this...but yet, here we are... Shot info (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The sooner we stop demeaning our perceived enemies as "those POV pushers" simply because they disagree with us, the better. Orderinchaos 08:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Obama thing is a right/left divide. I just don't think it's significant. I resent the handwaving and hyperbole used to try to mislead other editors. Those tactics don't belong here. --Pete (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a right/left issue. It's actually pretty neutral, though I can see why it might irritate the right from a post-Howard-era perspective, and I can also see that if done badly it could be used as an antagonist by the left, and if more than a sentence was spoken to it there'd be an undue weight issue. What I was saying was that specific editors who have a LONG history of conflict with each other which nearly went to ArbCom last year, one group of whom are right wing, the others of whom are left wing, have found a new trivial issue to fight about. I can see exactly where this is going circa September if people cannot learn to be more agreeable and less partisan, and having had to manage those sort of restrictions elsewhere, article paroles and editor paroles imposed by ArbCom are not a fun place to be for anybody, and would be a blatant embarrassment to the Australian project which has a long history of reasonably solid self-management. Orderinchaos 10:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'm happy to go along with consensus, but I can't see that we are any closer to it after long discussion, and "discussion" is me being polite. If someone can come along with a compelling argument as to why this all-but forgotten spat is significant, then maybe I'll change my views. But to give this little tiff the same amount of space as the long and deep relationship between Howard and Bush, that just doesn't make any sense to me. --Pete (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

To me, the existence of both a major amount of news coverage from significant media outlets, and a major amount of editorial comment and analysis of an incident is a pretty good indicator of the significance of that incident. With this, the notability is apparent, though I agree with user:Orderinchaos and user:CIreland who argued that notability does not need to be proven, and we should look at BLP and Undue Weight for biographies. It is therefore important to include the Obama attack in this article. Lester 06:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You mention Undue Weight. Did you even read what I said about the Bush/Howard relationship or did you just pick this spot as a random place to repeat your very familiar opinion over again? --Pete (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have noted above, this item is NOT about the HOward/Obama relationship, so comparisons with the Howard/Bush relationship are irrelevant. Even if Obama hadn't replied in the way he had, Howard's comments would be notable for what they say about Howard's politics more than anything else. The incident says a lot about HOward, his political views and how he goes about promoting them, which is why its so significant in a BLP -i.e. its telling. Eyedubya (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So far the article has been reverted 14 times with the intent of deleting the Obama incident. 9 of those deletions were by user:Skyring. 4 by user:Shot info, and once by user:Blnguyen. All happened within minutes or seconds of the content being added. With most of the deletions being made by just one person, I don't call that finding consensus. We know that reverting an article to delete content is an extreme measure that should only be done in extreme circumstances, such as vandalism or libel. Reverting to delete content should never be used by anyone (regardless of political persuasion) to delete cited content under the guise of being "non-notable".Lester 07:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Lester, you're engaging in disruptive editing here. By all means, please continue, but note that you have had it pointed out to you. For the record, try reading WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS for who is in the right here, and who isn't. But then again, this has been pointed out to you previously, yet the disruptive editing continues... Shot info (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to focus on content rather than contributors. While I'm not a Christian any more, I think Jesus had a lot of wise words to say, and Matthew 7:1-5 is apt here:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

I am not addressing this to any specific contributor, but rather to anyone who tries to name and shame other contributors while themselves involved in the dispute. Orderinchaos 07:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen.Eyedubya (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The community

Please keep civil.

This page/debate requires a very sensitive threshold for civility. This new section today already has a few too many comments on editors rather than content. Even what an editor might think is tiny gets received as major - be mindful of our language and how it gets interpreted. I suggest reporting any further breaches of incivility to admins (of course, this comes with the qualifier that I don’t pretend to have an unblemished record, and am open to anyone who wants to point out where I’m being careless on the civilty front). This is not meant to highlight any editor/s in particular, and I don’t think my post here needs editors to respond to either apologise or defend their own actions – it's a reminder, and a suggestion that any problems from here on be referred to uninvolved admins.

And the edit warring is just silly – this whole issue is killing progress on not only this article, but on a whole range of articles. It’s not just chewing up time, but also good will. Is it worth it? --Merbabu (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war suggestion

OK, edit warring is out of control again. Rather than closing the whole article with a page protect, why not now implement a temporary embargo on anyone editing on the Obama issue. If it is broken, that editor is blocked for a period. This applies to any editor as follows:

• Those who have already contributed to the discussion or has edited on it can thus be considered to have been warned - immediate block. Ie including off the top of my head but not limited to: myself, Timeshift, Skyring, Lester, Ravel, Shot Info (to name a few).
• Any “new” editor to the issue (no comment here and no contribution on the obama issue on the article) can be warned if they do edit the issue.

Just a thought which would require admin backing. At least it avoids another complete lock down of the article. --Merbabu (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, way to inspire sockpuppets! Btw, why am I included? My last edit was 3 days ago, and barely any before that. I haven't engaged in pointless warring. Timeshift (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither has anyone else, presumably. We've all got opinions. The way forward is to find some solution amongst ourselves. However, I wouldn't look on edit-warring as entirely content-driven. In my case I'll revert an edit in order to get the editor to participate in discussion. --Pete (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither has anyone else, presumably. And that's where I leave the humourous but pointless discussion yet again for another day. You keep believing you amongst others have been as well behaved in the article as I have. Timeshift (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the tactics that work in student politics don't work out in the real world....or Wikipedia even :-) --Shot info (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't use tactics on wikipedia talk pages. You do, do you? Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to be done! It seems that this is in a endless loop which seems like it's not going to stop. Merbabu you've lost me with "Those who have already contributed to the discussion or has edited on it can thus be considered to have been warned", does this mean anyone who has been in the discussion on the talk page?, if so why?. Bidgee (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The edit waring goes quiet only when those in favour of inclusion give up the war, and are not prepared to engage in war one step further than those who want to delete. Notice that the "breaks" in the war are always at times when the content has been deleted? This is because the deletors form revert tag-teams to out-war any single opponent. Hence my conclusion that the issue is settled by edit waring, rather than discussion. I repeat that the excuse of "non-notability" should never be used by anyone as an excuse to take the extreme measure of reverting an article with the intention of deleting referenced content.Lester 07:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So far the only "tag teaming" is by advocates who are trying to dodge past consensus, without going thru all that messy "writing for the other side". Shot info (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Firmly agreed. I admit my action today was not in the spirit of my own recommendations, but I got sick of watching the warring going on here and took a step back and decided the best action in this case was to restore the content and effectively end the dispute. There has got to be a point where the interests of the encyclopaedia must come ahead of partisan bickering, and I am not ashamed of trying at least to bring the matter to a close. I think we're getting close to an ArbCom threshold of stalemate, and as an Australian editor the last thing I want to see is a bunch of our own on parade and up for ridicule by the wider Wikipedian community. Orderinchaos 07:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What is consensus?

From wiktionary...
consensus

1. General agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision-making and follow-up action.
2. Average projected value, as in the finance term consensus forecast.
3. A standard of decision-making where agreement is defined as the lack of active opposition to the proposed course of action.

(emphasis mine). "Majority rules" is a democracy, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is required for material to be included. The Obama stuff clearly does not have consensus, only a (slim) majority of editors support its inclusion. It simply should not be in the article. --Surturz (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

When consensus exists neither way to do anything, then common sense prevails. See WP:IAR. Orderinchaos 07:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The status quo is that the Obama material has been excluded, after discussion, for over a year. Common sense is that consensus must be found for inclusion now, when it is even less significant. --Pete (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

When you have two implacably opposed groups each of whom only uses consensus as a tool to belt the other with when it suits them, and each of whom actively resists the entire concept of consensus in practice, I think that's when we throw the rulebook out the window and start asking basic questions. This section is doing no harm, the perpetual warring over it, however, is. Orderinchaos 08:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me put it another way. The Obama material was out, we don't have anything like a general opinion that it should be included now, we don't have any wikipolicy that mandates inclusion, therefore it stays out. Unless, of course, the incident becomes significant at some time in the future, when we can revisit the issue. --Pete (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I said I wasn't going to call anyone out here, but your behaviour over the last few days has been singularly disappointing. Firstly, you used the RfC as a basis to remove the content, then when the RfC swung towards supporting the inclusion and I tried to resolve the matter by restoring the content, you continued to resist its inclusion. You've since presented at least two new arguments to oppose its reinclusion, and edit-warred to keep it out. Essentially, you have decided it is not notable, and even though an emerging majority have supported the content's inclusion, you will not let it be there. I do not think this is behaviour in accordance with expectations on Wikipedia. I think the decision should be left to a mutually acceptable neutral party. Orderinchaos 10:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you at all. When did I use the RfC as a basis for reverting inclusion? A slender majority one way or another, particularly when not all involved editors participated, isn't consensus for inclusion. The RfC, the poll, the continued discussion, all three show that there is nothing like general agreement. If it was one against the tide, then I wouldn't waste my time. --Pete (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The vote is only part of the story. As others have cited, the great majority of reverts have been yours, and on 23 May [1] you used the edit summary: RfC shows no consensus for inclusion. Please stick with process.. Now that the RfC has collected as much dust as it probably will, a slight majority (higher when one considers regular editors in the area) have supported its inclusion. I actually found this surprising, I thought it would come right down in the middle as the established "sides" in this battle are about equal in size and most other people do not care as the disputes are over largely trivial matters. Additionally, consensus does not mean unanimous agreement, nor does it mean a majority vote - it's an entire concept which involves two sides finding agreement. Absolutely blocking any kind of resolution is not a cooperative measure nor is it likely to dissipate the built-up hostility that has had more than a year to date to gather steam across a group of editors who likely will never agree on anything. I was quite happy to support you on the copra plantations, but this one is an entirely different situation as there's no concept of harm or reputation involved anywhere. People can expect me to take each individual case on its own merits, as I always have done. Orderinchaos 11:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've got you now. I used that wording in the edsum because Lester had used the poll as a basis for reinserting the excluded material, claiming a majority. Much as you did a few hours ago, presumably in response to his one-sided summary. But the RFC didn't bring in much in the way of useful comment, and the poll doesn't include all participants, nor does it show any sort of heavy majority one way or the other. The copra thing was irrelevant to John Howard, and this incident is obviously more significant than the copra, but still it hasn't gone anywhere. If it fits into the Howard story, then it is probably as a rider to the Howard/Bush relationship - Howard was supporting Bush's position on the WoT - but looking at WP:WEIGHT, I can't see how this little tiff deserves anything like the same space as the long and close Howard/Bush alliance. --Pete (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor correction. One could argue a negative of a negative is a positive, but the actual point I was making was that an invalid action had been taken on a flawed basis, so I was undoing said action. I made no assertion about what the RfC *did* provide, only what it did *not*.

Re shorter section for Obama vs section on Bush - I agree, of course it doesn't. It deserves one sentence as a footnote, I think only maybe one or two people have argued otherwise. (There's many other imbalances in the Howard article that drastically need correcting, one of them being that he spent 10 years as a treasurer and opposition leader yet we have almost nothing on that and yet screens and screens on 2004-07, much of which doesn't inform the reader. But I digress...) One problem with edit wars and hostile exchanges is we tend to battle two inferior versions instead of working to develop a better one, as everyone gets entrenched in battle positions. Finally, why would it go with Bush? Bush isn't running in 2008, nor are any of his allies. It should be under US relations or international relations if no specific section on the US. Orderinchaos 16:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me just quote the totality of the section in the John Howard article headed "US relations":

• John Howard was a staunch ally of United States president George W. Bush[65][66]. In May, 2003, Howard made an overnight stay at Bush's Prairie Chapel Ranch in Texas, during which time Bush described him as "a man of steel."[67] The two shared a common ideology on many issues, most visibly in their approach to the "War on Terror".[65] On 22 February 2005 Howard announced that Australia would increase its military commitment to Iraq with an additional 450 troops, telling John Laws, "I’m openly saying that some small adjustment at the margin might happen".[68]

Looking at the Obama material that various editors are getting fired up about, it's pretty much the same length as all of the above, judging by this diff. Three sentences for Obama, four sentences for the entire U.S. relationship. --Pete (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I will just note for posterity here (in case this ever does go anywhere) that the above should be read a time and place comment as of 26 May 2008 - here and now that is the case, in the past and likely in the future there have been/will be different cases with different situations and actors. In the past I have had cause to defend Skyring from undue personal attacks and harassment, and I would again if circumstances such as those last December repeated. Orderinchaos 10:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• The fact that a neutral insertion of a well-known and non-controversial fact about the subject is so heavily opposed here by a handful of editors who seem to OWN the page is sad. This is destructive to Wikipedia.► RATEL ◄ 10:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is interesting to note that 9 of 15 who voted in the poll (10 of 16 if you count Gnan's neutral) voted to include. 60 percent support. I'd say that's an inclusion based on how much warring has gone on so far. Timeshift (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Obama Compromise Solutions

I've added the Obama reference to the sentence about Howard being a staunch ally of Bush. I hope this compromise is acceptable to everyone. --Surturz (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It almost feels like censorship - it's *a* step forward, but I can't see any logical rationale behind referencing it but not including it. It's not like we're mentioning anything that couldn't be said before 8:30pm on TV. Orderinchaos 13:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not censorship, I'm not offended by the Obama stuff, I simply see it as irrelevant and cluttering the page. --Surturz (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. It is an unrelated reference to what is being referenced, and simply a way for the exclusionists to have Obama remain off the page, and completely misses the point of this long-running issue. Timeshift (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Two points that have just been made to me, by the way:

• First time ever that an Australian leader of government has intervened in a US presidential contest.
• Only one of two occasions where a presidential candidate in the 2008 election has been attacked by a foreign leader of government. Incidentally, McCain echoed Howard's point fairly recently in a speech, but later retracted it. Orderinchaos 13:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

These points have been made before and listing them again does not make them original. Why not put the episode on the Barack Obama page and see how long it lasts? If it survives there (without controversy), I will tolerate it here. I will make the point that compromise involves being creative and coming up with alternative ways of including the material in the article that are acceptable to everyone. I've made an effort, perhaps you guys can come up with something better. --Surturz (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Howard made the attacks, not Obama. So how do you support its inclusion there but not here? This is simply an attempt to claim a compromise has been offered when infact it has not. No mention = no compromise. A read of your talk page (which can be seen in history if you choose to remove it) would also show your open admission that you are not just partisan but actively POV-push because you believe "others do too", as if this is some sort of acceptable way of operating. Timeshift (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't support its inclusion in either article. I am just saying that if it survives in the Obama article, this would convince me that it deserves inclusion in this article. --Surturz (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that is logical. There are different arguments to be put for how the issue is noteable to Howard, and how it is noteable to Obama. If both were argued, they would need to be argued for their own merits. Why should the attackee rather than the attacker be used for noteability? Seems like another diversionary tactic to me. Timeshift (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The major claim on significance is that it was Obama, a leading contender in an important foreign election, who participated in the event. If it was some minor player, then it wouldn't have the same weight. If it is not significant enough to be included in the Obama article, then I can't see that it would be significant enough for here.

I'm very skeptical of claims that all this is unprecedented. Usually it means that rather than doing the research of looking through old books, the person making the claim can't remember anything like it. I'm reasonably confident that Deakin commented publicly on election candidates, and at the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I'm likewise sure that Hitler attracted adverse comment before election. The Fiji situation probably got a few remarks, too. The difference with Obama is that it is within living and Internet memory. --Pete (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The two claims put to me, as repeated above, only relate to US elections - the US, of course, being the world's superpower and a, if not the, major determinant in Australian foreign relations since 1942. References to Fijian, Reich German, or any other country's elections don't actually invalidate the points made. Orderinchaos 16:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Deakin probably had something to say about Teddy Roosevelt. And Joseph Lyons about Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal. Do we have any newspaper searchable back to Federation, I wonder? --Pete (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to argue this is about Obama but not Howard. This is about a mistake Howard made. The analysis and editorials all indicate it was a strategic mistake of Howard's to have attacked Obama. They say it backfired. Though Howard, as always, did not admit this. Adding a reference to the article without the content doesn't really progress the article anywhere. Lester 19:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"It doesn't make sense to argue this is about Howard but not Obama." Nobody is arguing this. It's about both. Get the incident to stick in the Obama article and you've got a good wikicase for its inclusion here. Rudd's earwax-eating was another mistake, seen at the time by quality sources as a threat to his election chances. But nothing ever came of it. Just like the Obama thing. --Pete (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Howard did the dirty deed. Not Obama. Timeshift (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise #2

I've added a half-sentence saying that Howard spoke out against "Bush's political opponents". I hope this compromise is acceptable to everyone. --Surturz (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise #3

I've changed the half-sentence to mention Obama by name. I hope this compromise is acceptable to everyone. --Surturz (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to make this perfectly clear. This is a large, ongoing dispute, heading to RfM amongst other places. If you wish to propose a way forward, do it on the talk page, not by editing the article. Timeshift (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing the article until a version acceptable to everyone is reached is the way wikipedia is supposed to work. The RfM page make it clear that the dispute can be resolved before mediation. Are you reverting my changes because you disagree with them? I am trying to compromise here. --Surturz (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, on the talk page. Timeshift (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Trying to reach a compromise seems alot more reasonable than just leaving the article the way it is. Perhaps you should stop acting like the king of the article and treat wikipedia as the collectively run site that it is. There is no reason to take this to Moderation especially when the other party is offering to meet you half way. 64.230.40.160 (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) note: For the record, I AGREE that the Obama incident should be mentioned. But I also believe that compromise is key, neither side is ever 100% right.

You make no sense. I changed it from a compromise with no consensus, to no mention at all of Obama, until a compromise, on the talk page, is reached. Show me where the consensus is to keep it? Didn't think so. Timeshift (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise #4

What do people think of this text:

John Howard was a staunch ally of United States president George W. Bush^[1], even criticising Bush's political opponent Barack Obama. Howard's comment provoked much controversy as it was the first time an Australian Prime Minister had commented on a US election^[2].

--Surturz (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I welcome your moves to discuss on talk rather than add to article without consensus, I question your compromise. What is the difference between your proposal, and the original one? Apart from adding precisely what Howard said. Is that what the exclusionists can't handle? The incendiary nature of the comment itself? Timeshift (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is too long already, and the incident is not noteworthy. However, I can handle a sentence or two referring to the incident if it means getting rid of the stupid POV tag. Do you find text #4 above acceptable? Or are you holding out for the full he-said she-said version? --Surturz (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your words do not indicate that you wish to seek consensus. Disappointing. Timeshift (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I want a version of the text that is acceptable to everyone. I consider that seeking a consensus. It would be helpful if you would at least give some indication of what you want, or why you consider my compromise text to be deficient. --Surturz (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You completely miss the point. You should be taking your 'compromises' to the talk page. If you believe in them, why are you afraid to discuss your 'compromises' before adding? Timeshift (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now taken my compromises to the talk page. Some feedback from you on the compromise text would be helpful. --Surturz (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with leaving out what was said. Why is it noteable? Nobody would know unless they read the reference. It is just a way of letting the exclusionist pattern continue. But alas, it has been re-added, without any consensus. No wonder people aren't participating in this new compromise when it gets thrusted upon the article. Pity really that wikipedia must be ruined in this way. Timeshift (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the original text only has what Obama said verbatim, Howard was not quoted at all. Could you please provide your preferred version of the text? --Surturz (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise #5

Original unacceptable text:

In February, 2007, Howard criticised United States Senator Barack Obama's policy on the Iraq War, the day after Obama declared his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination. Howard claimed that a victory for Obama would be a boon for terrorists. Obama replied: "So, if he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them up to Iraq."^[2]

Howard's quote:

If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats

My suggestion:

John Howard was a staunch ally of United States president George W. Bush^[1], even criticising Bush's political opponent Barack Obama^[2]. Howard's comment provoked much controversy as it was the first time an Australian Prime Minister had commented on a US election. Obama replied by challenging Howard to increase Australian troop involvement in Iraq.

That's the limit of what I'll accept. At least I saved a line. Any more is a complete capitulation, not a compromise. --Surturz (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've gotten rid of this and an associated edit. Not because I'm being difficult and unco-operative, but because it is genuinely bad. If we are to mention the Obama incident at all, it needs to be in the context of the Bush/Howard relationship. I think I'm on safe ground in saying that this relationship was particularly significant. For one thing, if we had had another leader, Australia might not have gone to war in Iraq. Other nations managed to avoid the "Coalition of the Willing" without sacrificing their good relations with the U.S. Canada is a notable example. If we have a solid section on the significant US relationship, then I'm not going to quibble over the trivial Obama incident. However, a mere sentence or two on the Bush relationship matched by a sentence or two on the Obama tiff, that gives Obama undue and unreasonable weight, and we're not serving our readers well.

The deletion by Eydebubya of much of the US relationship material is quite unjustified. Bush and Howard regarded each other well, and that is the reason why the national alliance was so close during this period. Apart from the war in Iraq, we also have some very large defence purchases which didn't seem to go through the same rigorous procedure as previous. They may have helped the alliance, but the benefits to the defence force have been hotly debated.

The significance of the Obama incident has been pumped up by the statement repeated over and over again that "this was the first time an Australian Prime Minister had commented on a US election." Do we have a good source for this? I don't believe that it is true at all, and I certainly won't support inclusion without we have a solid, reliable source saying so.

So my suggestion is that we expand the U.S. relationship section, and I note that Lester got this underway in the first place. I'm certainly not looking for a Liberal whitewash, because I think Howard deserves some criticism on what turned out to be a very bad decision. We can then add in the Obama thing in the context of Howard's support of Bush and the Iraq war. Good, reliable sources, please.

Some may see this as a capitulation. Maybe it is if you view this and other articles as a battle between entrenched parties. I don't. My primary concern is to have this and other articles serve as a useful resource, rather than a repository of polemic and propaganda. Put the Obama thing in proper context without inflating its significance, and I've got no objection.

My secondary concern is for the continued participation of Lester. I've done my best to praise him for excellent research skills, but I think he wrote me off long ago and regards me in an entirely negative light. His attitude is markedly reminiscent of another editor, and those with long memories will know the person, who was exceedingly difficult to deal with. I eventually found a way to work with this editor, but it took a lot of mutual pain before that happened, and he was pretty much wikipedia-ed out and gone before I came back, at least under this name.

With regard to Lester, I probably haven't helped much by making jokes and roundly criticising him. In my defence, the atmosphere around here has been so poisonous and personal that it's hard not to respond in kind. This is hard on the gentler members of our community. --Pete (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've taken your point, and as a result moved the whole section and renamed it. If the material from 2003 is relevant (and arguably it is) then it cannot be a sub-section within the section about Howard;s 4th term. Your comments above suggest strongly that this section needs expanding, as this relationship was certainly a key element of Howard's time in office. Eyedubya (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we are finally getting back to editing the article rather than trying to involve mediators and arbitrators. While I will put up with it if it means getting rid of the POV tag, I'd really rather delete the following:

Obama's reply was that if Howard was so keen to fight in Irag, he should send another 20,000 Australian troops there.

My reason is that this is an article about John Howard, and it is therefore reasonable to expect him to have the last word. If this was an article about the Iraq War, then obviously the Obama reply would deserve inclusion to maintain NPOV. However, this article is about Howard himself and his opinions, and therefore there is no reason to include his opponents' arguments - it can be assumed that his opponents opposed him. Replies/criticism from allies is perhaps deserving of inclusion (because it is not expected that they would oppose him), as is support from opponents (also because it is unexpected). This might seem like whitewashing or POV, but it really isn't - we are trying to present his views, we are not trying to establish whether those views are good or bad. Of course, questions of fact generally would merit inclusion (e.g. children overboard) but both sides of the argument to "The War in Iraq was a good thing" does not need to be presented - we only need to establish that Howard was a firm supporter of the war. --Surturz (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with this formulation - as I've been arguing all along, this episode warrants inclusion on the basis that its teling with regard to John Howard's politics. Obama's response is irrelevant in this instance. Eyedubya (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What Obama thought of what Howard said doesn't actually add to the story in any relevant way, and people are free to read that information in the source. Orderinchaos 10:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise #6

Current version:

In February 2007, when referring to the 2008 U.S. Presidential race, Howard said that al Qaeda should pray for a win by (Bush's political opponent) Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.[100][101]

This is better, but JH was not genuinely saying that al qaeda should pray for a democrat win, it was said ironically as an insult to Obama. I can't really think of how to put it though. This is my best effort so far, but I'm not happy with it:

In February 2007, when referring to the 2008 U.S. Presidential race, Howard claimed a win by (Bush's political opponent) Barack Obama and the Democratic Party would benefit terrorist group Al Qaeda.

Anyone got better wording? --Surturz (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I find sometimes going back to basics is the best way. The exact quote was: "If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats."[2][3][4] The BBC source (third-linked) further quotes Howard that Mr Obama's stance on Iraq "will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory". It comments, 'In making his comments, Mr Howard appears to have broken that unwritten diplomatic rule of not intervening in the domestic politics of another nation, our correspondent says.'

My version would therefore be, "In February 2007, referring to the US presidential contest, Howard claimed that Democratic nomination candidate Barack Obama's stance on Iraq would encourage Iraq's internal opponents, going so far as to say Al Qaeda should "pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats." (sources: news.com.au; BBC) It would actually be incorrect to call him "Bush's political opponent" at this stage (and even so, it's not relevant). If necessary to mention a response, something bland such as "Both Obama and shadow foreign minister Kevin Rudd criticised the comments." Orderinchaos 05:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Too long for my liking, and I think the quote only merits inclusion as an example of the closeness between him and GWB. It is appearing in the GWB relationship section remember. Also, Obama was most definitely a political opponent of Bush's - he's a Democrat, the parenthetical comment suits the text around it. How about this?

A particularly notable feature of John Howard's period in office was his close relationship with United States president George W. Bush[98] In May, 2003, Howard made an overnight stay at Bush's Prairie Chapel Ranch in Texas, during which time Bush described him as "a man of steel."[99] The two shared a common ideology on many issues, most visibly in their approach to the "War on Terror".[98]
In February 2007, when referring to the 2008 U.S. Presidential race, Howard claimed a win by (Bush's political opponent) Barack Obama and the Democratic Party would be "a victory for the terrorists".[100][101]

(I included the preceding para for context, the bold is for this page only of course) I quite like this version, it's short, punchy and has the 'dramatic' element that should pacify the lefties editing this article. It could possibly be misread as JH saying that the Democrats are terrorists, but I think that is a small risk. --Surturz (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Three major problems:

• That to me is not why it's notable. It was what turned out to be a one-off for the careful Howard in breaching diplomatic protocol regarding our largest ally and its government. It has very little to do with GWB.
• The parenthetical isn't in encyclopaedic style - this article already has enough problems with poor quality writing without us adding more to the mess. Additionally, the "anyone with half a brain" test applies here. As for the opponent bit - he currently has two, so there is no "Bush's political opponent" until it is resolved in favour of one of them. (This contrasts with "a political opponent of George Bush", which allows for more than one.)
• The quote "victory for the terrorists" is completely out of context and possibly misleading in the way it's been used - he was saying Obama's stance may create that, rather than a vote for the Democrats and Obama. (Note the wording of that statement said "...hang on and hope for an Obama victory", which suggested that the projected victory for said terrorists would occur before any vote for Obama.) If one is going to make an assertion, one must represent it very carefully. Punchy should not come at the expense of WP:BLP or WP:SYN.

Oh, and a quibble - per WP:ENGVAR, we should use Australian English, and U.S. is a US English abbreviation. Additionally, "race" is arguably ambiguous in the context, hence my use of "contest" as a synonym. I was an editor for three years so I will admit to pedantry. Orderinchaos 07:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

1. As per previous discussion I (and I think Skyring) don't believe it is notable on diplomatic grounds. My suggested compromise is that the episode be included as evidence of the relationship with GWB. Do we really care if different editors want it included for different reasons? Main thing is it is there.
2. I don't like the parenthetical, but without it the narrative is disjointed. If you can come up with better wording, that would be great.
3. I see your point, although I feel it is a bit hair splitting. See wording below.
4. quibble - no problems from me about that.

So now we come to...

Compromise #7

This is my proposed text:

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

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

Looks good to me. The MoS nickname is a reference to Superman. Maybe a link should be inserted. (previous unsigned comment by EyeDubya) Eyedubya (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I get the reference, you get the reference, but I wonder if GWB did (lol). Is GWB a reader of comics? --Surturz (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Silence does not = consent to compromise suggestions

At the RFM talk page Surturz wrote: While we are waiting for the result of the RfM, could all interested editors please look at Talk:John_Howard#Compromise_.236 and comment. I will take silence to imply consensus as per WP:SILENCE. Many thanks, --Surturz (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Given that many of us are prepared to participate in mediation and use that process to obtain consensus I find the suggestion that our silence on parallel processes implies consent as not appropriate. Essentially I think it inappropriate that there is an attempt to run a parallel process to the RfM when Surturz is not prepared to join a mediation attempt that many others are prepared to do on exactly the same question.--Matilda ^talk 07:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OK I won't implement any compromise wording until after the RfM has been resolved. I will note that given the narrow terms of the RfM, I imagine we will need to discuss the text at some point, though! --Surturz (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "I"? Don't you mean "we"? None of us own this article or maintain exclusive editing rights. Orderinchaos 07:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I can only give assurances on my own actions, so I mean "I". If someone else edits, I can't stop them. --Surturz (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-adding of Obama material

Why are we adding differed versions of the Obama/Howard saga back in to the article without any agreement or consensus reached on the said compromise? This is not cohesive. Timeshift (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have moved my suggested text to the talk page. Sorry all I forgot about 3RR. --Surturz (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[5] This material seems suitable for inclusion in the current article. It is verifiable, and reliably sourced. The suggestions made on this talk page that the article needs adjusting now that John Howard is an ex-PM make sense. There are some problems with the structure of this article which may be able to be fixed. Perhaps the article needs a tag for whatever the opposite of a merge is? The Neutrality tag doesn't seem quite right. --NewbyG (talk) 23:31, 27 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: [6].► 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)

Whilst we dont use consensus, or a majority of poll participants, as the final means of inclusion/exclusion of content, I will take note that the people arguing that the issue isn't relevant are in the minority per below. The slide of exclusion is getting all that much more slippery... Timeshift (talk) 08:43, 26 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)
• Strong Exclude - not significant. Doesn't deserve a mention, let alone the same amount of space as the long and deep Howard/Bush relationship. --Pete (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Exclude I really can't see why it is a notable part of Howard's career. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:00, 26 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)
• Include Notability has been proven by the global coverage by all major media outlets, it's domination of United States media coverage and commentary at the time, and continued occasional mentions by major media outlets to this day (not that notability needs to be proven for every point in an article anyway). The commentary and analysis by every major political journalist in Australia speaks for itself as to why the incident was of importance, with commentary describing Howard's actions as "unprecedented" and not normal diplomatic behaviour. See the links I have provided on the discussion page for sources and references to support this view.Lester 05:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Include. Meets all the relevant criteria, nothing from outside has been provided to demonstrate non-significance. Eyedubya (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Include It is a notable exchange between two notable politicans and can be adequately sourced. But also tend to agree with Gnangarra. We can only speculate on how significant this event will be in the long-term. I support including it for now but it should be re-examined in a few years time. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 03:35, 27 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)
• Neutral While this may have received a lot of attention at the time, it doesn't seem to have any lasting significance for either Howard, or Obama (which doesn't really matter since this is the Howard article), or Australian-US relations. Perhaps the attention it received at the time mean it deserves brief mention in the article but if so it should be very, very brief, no more then one short sentence. Let's not forget this is the main article about the (currently) second-longest serving PM of Australia, who did a lot and generated a lot of controversy throughout his carrier. This example [7] is definitely something we should avoid, it is heavily out of proportion given that there are surely much more significant things in US relations then this yet is takes up more then half of the US relations section! (For comparison, the section about the boatpeople/children incident which is a lot more significant then this, where he basically blatantly lied in an extremely offensive manner during an election campaign is only slightly longer. Nil Einne (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

Two factors are apparent with the discussions so far. 1, Nobody appears willing to compromise. 2, There has been lots of passion and resulting incivility in the discussions. As a result of this, I feel that it would be appropriate for this issue to be referred a Request for mediation. The benefits of mediation would be 1, Solve by discussion rather than edit waring by bringing parties together 2, Look at the issues rather than focus on the editors 3, Look at the issue in relation to Wikipedia rules and guidelines 4, A mediated discussion would restore civility to the discussion, enabling discussion to progress 5, Find a compromise through real consensus (rather than claimed consensus). I feel a mediated discussion would be preferable to the Wild West atmosphere we are currently experiencing.Lester 00:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't you need to get all involved parties to agree to mediation? Perhaps you should read the rules first? --Pete (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Anything to avoid the inevitable, hey Pete? Timeshift (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Request opened at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. While all parties need to agree , they can state that they disagree to the case going down this path at the request.--Matilda ^talk 01:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

+450 troops removed

I removed the following:

On 22 February 2005 Howard announced that Australia would increase its military commitment to Iraq with an additional 450 troops, telling John Laws, "I’m openly saying that some small adjustment at the margin might happen".^[3]

This was probably fit for inclusion in 2005, but it is already established elsewhere that Howard was a strong supporter of the Iraq war, so I believe this part is no longer needed. --Surturz (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point I agree with what you've done, but taking the longer-term view, its likely that something on this may become appropriate if, say, the restructure results in a section on the Iraq War / War on Terror. At present, assessing the merit of content in this article is difficult because its structured chronologically rather than thematically. This means that it often tends to be overly repetitive and appears gossipy and trivial, while missing many items of significance because they have been omitted due to lack of a theme into which they fit. Eyedubya (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, good to keep it in mind - it might be useful to reinsert it after a restructure of the article, in the context of a section on the Iraq war (e.g. a timeline). Is there an "Australian involvement in the Iraq war" page? +450 troops doesn't reveal anything about Howard per se, but it is notable in Australian involvement context. --Surturz (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Found this article: Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq - quote might be useful there. --Surturz (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Classic case where this article was housing something that quite rightly belonged elsewhere. Orderinchaos 23:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war must stop

I think there's a fundamental problem here, and that is the edit war, and that affects the ability of the community as a whole to effectively make improvements to the article. How can you make changes to the article when those changes will be decided - not by community involvement - but by edit waring. It's not a good process to improve the article, and this problem has not yet been resolved. Every future piece of content will be subject to another edit war to decide its fate. It was not long ago when there was a massive edit war over the line-up of all former Australian Prime Minsters at the Stolen Generation apology - with the non-attendance of John Howard. People were reverting the article seconds after the content went in, again claiming non-notability as a reason to revert the article. To stop these edit wars, we need to accept some guidelines:

• 1. That reverting an article is an extreme measure to be used only for vandalism and libelous content, and that notability is not a reasonable excuse to revert. This is the crucial and fundamental issue.
• 2. That instead of reverting to get one's way with content, that the issue is progressed through standard Wikipedia methods of dispute resolution.

Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes are well laid out and available to all, and are designed to ensure community resolutions. Yet we are not using these pre-defined processes. Even now there are some editors who appear to be refusing to get involved in the Request of Mediation. So that's it - no revert wars - go to dispute resolution - it's not that hard. With the community involvement, you're going to win some content disputes and lose others. That's how it is. But today the edit war has continued, and while it's easy to say let's forget it, lets try to move on to another content issue, we still have this fundamental problem that needs to be solved, or it's going to keep coming back to bite. Thanks, Lester 12:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the persistence of some forms of negative behaviour by some editors, I suspect that insistence on these rules is only going to be partially successful, if at all - it demonstrates that some people find gaming the system more rewarding than editing and contributing. I think there are bigger issues to work on wrt this article and waiting for the edit warring to stop will only divert time and energy from more productive activities. Set an example, while making note of all the obstructions you encounter along the way is another possibility. Eyedubya (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's not going to stop. I think we're just going to have to move without it, but I don't know how we'll manage when half the editors are in separate groups talking past each other. Orderinchaos 12:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

All we can do is give it our best shot and see what happens. Can we set up a page called "John Howard (working)" to do the restructure? This would allow the edit warmongers to carry on fighting over the John Howard article while others re-work one to replace it. It might result in chaos, but at least its a start. Eyedubya (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki convention would be a subpage - eg John Howard/working see below.. But yes, I'd support that. Orderinchaos 13:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought editors who edit war get banned for a period of time? I can't see how or why editors who edit war (There also has been some 4RR+'s) aren't being banned? It's disruptive, unconstructive and puts people (new editors) off editing. The edit warring and fighting needs to stop. Bidgee (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to start blocking people, Bidgee but someone needs to report it if there have been 3RRs and 4RRs. Just write a report and the users will be blocked. I'm actually of the opinion that a bunch of editors from this and related political pages need to go to arbitration and be banned, some from Wikipedia but most from all Australian political pages. The edit warring and bickering on both sides is beyond reason and it's one of the reasons many people like me gave up and steer totally clear of these pages. I mean, you come to an article's talk page to discuss the article and instead you have to pull on gumboots and wade through reams of bickering back and forth, backbiting and general crap from users on both sides of the spectrum. Sarah 13:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Filing a 3RR report is hard to do with the article in the mess it's in now (I wouldn't know where to start to find the original). I have reported a few times just on the Admin notice board with no Admin's coming in to help which I guess shows that who much of a mess this is in and how bad the situation is if they're not wanting to get involved with this article which is a fair call but leaving something isn't going to fix this. I agree and for an arbitration but the problem is it can take it's time for a final out come which means it's not a fix for the short term. Bidgee (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it would have to be a talk subpage, such as Talk:John Howard/working because the feature subpages of the mainspace was disabled years ago and if you try to create a subpage of a mainspace page it creates it as another mainspace page. So John Howard/working would actually be another article called "John Howard/working" rather than an actual subpage. Sarah 13:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I knew it was something like that :) Yep, what she said. Orderinchaos 13:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag

I've just re-read the entire article, and I thought I'd try to remove the POV tag. The article as a whole seems basically factual. If people think it is still biased, feel free to reinstate the tag. --Surturz (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That was quick :-) Apart from the Obama stuff, what other content in the article do people consider POV? --Surturz (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is still systemic POV issues from editors who are intent on cleansing this and other pages. Did you gain any consensus/agreement from anyone to remove the POV tag? Timeshift (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidently not. So it stays, I guess :-( Please give examples of what you believe is POV in the article (apart from the "missing" Obama stuff) and I will endeavour to make them more balanced. --Surturz (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough....... it's all archived! If it wasn't archived by certain users hoping to achieve certain ends, my issues would still be on this page. Gain consensus for your POV tag removal. Timeshift (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point! I've gone over /Archive_10, and these are the concerns cited by you and Lester that I could find:

1) No mention of Lynton Crosby

2) No mention of Bush

3) No mention of Kyoto

4) Concern over inclusion of paying off govt debt

5) Concern over removal of material inferring Howard was responsible for inflation and rising interest rates

Have I missed anything? --Surturz (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

POV tag must remain. This discussion becomes another distraction. The article is subject to an RfM, so it is obvious that some editors believe it is not neutral. There would be no point discussing the POV issue until mediation is resolved. Lester 03:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

//My following remark refers to this comment which has since been removed// Let's be civil, and let's stop edit waring over the POV tag itself. Removing the tag before the Request of Mediation has run its course is antagonistic. Lester 04:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am honestly not trying to antagonise. I am trying to work out what changes you and Timeshift would require to give consent to removal of the POV tag. Is my list above complete? --Surturz (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If you join the Request for Mediation in the issue, instead of rejecting it, you'll have more chance of learning about what the other editors feel on the issue. Lester 04:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that my views are in significant opposition to you and Timeshift's. So at least the three of us will need to find a middle ground for there to be progress. I am trying to get a list of things (apart from the Obama thing) that you and Timeshift think are POV so I can have a crack at editing them to make them more NPOV. Is the list of five things above complete, or are there other items in (or missing from) the article that you want changed? What would it take for you to agree to remove the POV tag? --Surturz (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts? This article needs to be tagged, although I'm not sure POV is the right one. It's not factual (containing lots of verified facts does not actually make something factual), or balanced, or well-written. It's one of the most chronic examples of recentism Wikipedia has to offer amongst its more read Australian articles, focussing almost myopically on a term where Howard was in decline and generally perceived to be ineffective compared to previous terms. Strangely, it is actually fairly neutral - it jolts from praising him to bashing him and vice versa without any structure or direction whatsoever. The Canadian efforts put this one to shame, to be frankly honest. Orderinchaos 04:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you here. --Surturz (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

An article can sometimes be POV because of biased content that has been added, but it can also be POV because of content that has been omitted. The POV tag is the appropriate one for the short term, and the article needs to retain that tag until after the RfM is resolved at at minimum. Once tensions have cooled it will be more appropriate to look at other issues and other tags.Lester 04:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What content (apart from the Obama stuff) has been omitted that you think should be in the article? --Surturz (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lester, it’s about time that ways were sought to cool rather than escalate an issue. The POV tag went in before the Obama issue, thus Obama issue is not the original issue for the tag. It’s such a small issue – why do you want to damn in the eyes of readers the whole page? The RFM has *nothing* to do with the tag. Please do your bit to resolve, rather than escalate issues. Really, all these dramas are so tiring and waste so much time and energy (an RFM is just a further way to escalate an issue). is it really worth that much?

Thus, I’d now expect the original placer of the tag to suggest specific, workable fixes for the POV tag. I’m not suggesting they be fixed now, but at least provide direction on *all* issues rather than “systematic bias” which for me is a statement that should be ignored. And provide a fixed scope - no more scope creep on POV tags please. --Merbabu (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above I'd be happy to see the tag go, as long as the article is tagged in a way which indicates its present status. I don't think POV is its worst problem (or even a particularly major one except perhaps by its omissions - although those omissions favour both pro and anti in different ways), its quality is a bigger issue. Orderinchaos 05:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Merbabu. I appreciate the suggestion that there are other issues to look at, apart from the US Relations/Obama section. It was initially suggested, as part of the POV tag, that US Relations / Bush were not covered in the article. The whole US relations section, including Bush's praise of Howard as "man of steel", as well as the Obama saga, were both added as a flow-on from that initial POV complaint. So, yes, maybe it's possible to collaborate with new content during an edit war, with incivility on the talk page, but I agree with user:Orderinchaos (above) that the Obama edit war and stalemate hinders progression of the article. Regards, Lester 05:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think as well there's the idea that most users (especially those likely to be of most use) are time-poor and prefer to avoid conflict. Therefore if an article is perpetually in conflict over minor issues (which, let's face it, almost all of them have been despite the thousands of words expended on them), those contributors conclude that their contributions are not worth the time and effort in that area, and contribute elsewhere instead, depriving this page and the Australian politics project of their value. That's the specific phenomenon I'd like to resolve - one of the problems here is the fact we have so few contributors in this area, and opening it up wider can only be a good thing. Orderinchaos 05:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• The reader is directed to the talk page. I think this talk page would strongly benefit from a section at the top summarising issues currently under discussion as issues of disputed neutrality and links to relevant sub-headings on this page. I concur with User:Surturz and User:Merbabu that these issues should be clear and the tag should not be used as one of general discontent with the article. Time poor editors would also appreciate knowing which topics are covered by the POV tag and I htink specific articulation of POV issues in a list format will help to do that. I don't think the list has to be finite inthe sense that no other issues can be added to it, it needs to be finitely expressed in that the discontent should be artiuclated as a dot point and have a discussion place to follow.--Matilda ^talk 06:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As we discuss this here, back on the article page the edit war is continuing, with article reversions going on. Anyone who goes to the effort of finding citations for new content is likely to get caught up in the revert war and find it deleted again. That's my reasoning for stopping the edit war first, then it clears the air to look at other issues in the article. Thanks, Lester 06:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lester, that sounds like the US military telling Iraqi civilians to stop going about there daily life while to give them time to establish the ever elusive "security". No thanks - I'd rather get on with things and let the warmongers carry on. --Merbabu (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)