Talk:John Howard/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

RfC: Relevance of "New Guinea interests" to John Howard article

The Lyall Howard article describes certain notable events in his and his father's life, including their New Guinea interests, military service and petrol station ownership. The latter two are also briefly mentioned in the Early Life section of the John Howard article (Lyall's son). Should the New Guinea interests be included or omitted from John Howard? 17:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to have an RfC on this topic, but you'll see that some discussion of this has already occurred on this Talk page. Those in favor of including New Guinea believe (I think) that those events show some ethical lapses on Lyall's part, and that this is germane to Howard's story of his upbringing with good values. Those against seem to think that it has no relevance to John Howard's own story, and there is no reason to mention it outside of the Lyall Howard article. Do you have any new arguments to add? EdJohnston 17:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The question of "ethical lapses" is worth discussion. It seems pretty straightforward that Lyall Howard acted as a dummy for a commercial interest, but it doesn't appear that any laws were broken and certainly there were no charges laid. The practise of "dummying" seems to have been widespread and attracted no action or criticism except from those who didn't make use of the loophole. Arranging one's affairs to make best use of the law is evidence of good planning, not criminal intent, and if John Howard gained any lesson at all from it, I'd say that it was that knowing the law pays dividends.
However, all of this happened before John Howard was even born, and there is no evidence whatsoever that he had any knowledge of it until a long-defunct piece of paperwork surfaced years after his father was dead. Those seeking the inclusion of this material in the John Howard article are trying to make a connection out of nothing. I think that for the material to be relevant, a convincing case would have to be made that the practise of dummying was illegal and that John Howard knew about it before his father died.
The material is relevant to the Lyall Howard article, and if a reader follows the wikilink from the John Howard article to the Lyall Howard article, then they can read the reference and draw their own conclusions. --Pete 17:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This] is the source of the claims in the Lyall article while it talks about Lyall have a double life and not being the person who John presented him as it doesnt show anything that says John was involved in the issue, that he was even aware of it, or what happened to the planations and when. While whats written appears factual theres nothing that makes it worthy or relevant to this article. Actually IMHO Lyall isnt even notable under WP:N that notability isnt inherited this article claims he's only notable for being Johns father. Gnangarra 06:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Now I know Google searches are not definitive indicators of notability, however a search on Howards father and PNG basically comes up with the opinion article Gnangarra mentions above, and multiple blog enteries refering to that article. Accusing long dead people of wrong doing, when the authorities of the time investigated and found no crimes, is not something wikipedia should be a part of. If David Marr wants to write opinion pieces about in a column then thats his business, if bloggers want to take his story and post about it, that their business. The quest to write a non-partisan, relevant biography about the current PM is our business. I believe the reason for this episode, is the desire to include the "reference" more than anything, and IMO that piece in particular, and David Marr in general fail reliable source guidelines. In addition to this fact being not notable, it is also not relevant. Lyall Howard is a totally different being than the one we are writing about in this particular wikipedia article. Humankind had this worked out over four thousand years ago when it was taboo to judge the son on the sins of the father. Of course we know the father committed no crime, the source in question confirms this. All we have left is petty Fairfax "journalist" trying to rake mud over a long dead Australian war hero. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 07:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Ri-ight. Well, if enough reliable sources judge the son on the basis of the father, there's nothing we can do. Could you rephrase it in terms of WP policy? Incidentally, I turn up references to the story in the PNG Post-Courier as well. The Age carried it too. Hornplease 02:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is the newest version of the text. Everyone should read it here
Howard's father served in the war, owned plantations, as well as 2 petrol stations. It's pretty brief.
I believe these 3 facts are not disputed by anybody here, nor is what we have written about it libelous. The issue is that some people don't like the plantation info to be included. I think it's worthy, as it's a very very brief background to the sort of family John Howard grew up in. We can see his economic circumstances which have obviously helped shape the person he is. Lester2 09:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Lyall Howard ever actually owned the plantations... --Pete 17:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Howard family always legally owned the plantations. The newspaper article says the property "was bought in their own names but (the Howards) signed management of the businesses over to their backers". That's how the scheme worked. The ex soldiers owned the land and allowed corporations to run it and manage it for them, and in return, the corporations paid the ex-soldiers a yearly fee for using that land. For the corporations, managing the land owned by ex-soldiers was cheaper than if the corporation bought that land.
In most biographies, but especially one of a politician, it's interesting to know whether the subject came from a rich family or a poor family, was it a struggle or an easy life etc etc. John Howard often talks about how anyone should be able to start businesses, no matter how humble their circumstances. So a very brief paragraph listing his own family circumstances is relevant to know what sort of a start in life John Howard had.Lester2 23:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you please indicate exactly where the article states that the Howards owned the plantations? It says that title did not pass until the final payment was made - 20 years later - and that only a couple of ex-diggers actually ended up owning the plantations. We need a solid source before saying that the senior Howards were actually plantation owners. Sure, we can talk about John Howard's early life. But this doesn't extend to original research - we need a source. --Pete 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello User:Skyring(Pete). Holding title of land is owning it. The 'Carpenter & Co' company may have promised the Howards that they'd buy back the land at a later date, but nonetheless, the Howards owned it and received a yearly rent from 'Carpenter & Co' for the use of that land. The Howard family was paid rent money every year for many years. Not sure exactly how much rent, but there's no doubt the Howards were paid a yearly rent.
The transfer of title 20 years later is when John Howard and his mother sold the plantation land. Lyall Howard was supposed to have sold it years before, but there were errors with the paperwork and it actually wasn't officially sold until John Howard fixed the paper work in the early 1960s, long after Lyall's death.
As far as I'm aware, the Howard family did nothing illegal with their ownership of plantations. We don't suggest they did anything illegal. I think the part that upsets some Wikipedians here is that some people in the government at the time questioned whether ex-Servicemen should be allowed to buy plantations at a subsidised rate, when the running of the plantations was left to Carpenter & Co who made a huge profit. So I'm assuming people here are worrying that the controversy suggests some impropriety by the Howards. The government of the day probably should have closed the loophole, but from what we see, the Howard family acted legally.
Are the occupations and circumstances of a politicians parents worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia biographies? Talk a look how it is handled in other bios, such as Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher. Most bios have some kind of mention of what the parents were doing and what their circumstances were. In many ways, the Howard family cicumstances are more bio-worthy than a lot of other information in this article. Lester2 03:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The claim should be accurate, significant, and relevant to warrant inclusion. In my view:

  • Accuracy. The statement "They later invested in New Guinea plantations and ran a petrol station and mechanical workshop in Dulwich Hill" is accurate. So too are the alternatives: "were involved in", or "owned", or "bought into", or "acquired interests in". This is evident from Marr's SMH article (which itself cites National Archives material).
  • Significance. Marr's SMH article indicates "National Archives show Carpenters paid Lyall Howard every penny he needed to put down deposits on the first two plantations - plus £540 more. The money [...] may have been the seed finance for the Dulwich Hill garage which father and son took over the following month". This suggests it was of equivalent historical significance to the petrol station. Regardless of where the deposit money came from, relative to their means, the plantation involvement was surely of personal, family, and financial signifance, given that the federal Investigation Branch would later find the grandfather only "had an equity of about £100 in land at Bankstown" and Lyall "an equity of £750 in a cottage at Marrickville".
  • Relevant. This is a Biography of a Living Person. Facts about immediate family are usual. The 'Early Life' section already makes reference to other attributes of the Howard family (income, working life and military careers). The relevance of these are not disputed. The plantation investment is of equivalent relevance to the article subject.

This is no judgement on John Howard whatsoever. My POV is that his father, returned from war & about to have his first child, made an investment in hope of a better life for his new family. If anything, it embodies the aspiration of which John Howard often speaks. Sir John Middleton, son of Max Middleton (a plantation owner who outbid Lyall Howard for Kullili) "sees no stigma ..." ('Island life Howards could have had', Hamish McDonald, SMH, 14 July 2007). It is simply a genuinely interesting historical thread in the Howard family tapestry. I agree it should be included in the John Howard article. --Bren 07:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

LH didn't invest in the plantations. There is no evidence of any money flowing from him to PNG. Nor is there a statement saying he owned the plantations. The servo is notable for this article because JH worked there. The plantations aren't notable, because there is no link to JH. --Pete 04:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Marr article says "Lyall Howard tendered to buy four plantations ... He was awarded two ... he had only to stump up a 15 per cent deposit and then pay off the rest over 20 years. Every penny of that £6060 deposit - and more - was provided by Carpenters"; a claim that is supported by a recent article in SMH by a different author. If not invest/buy/acquire/obtain, what other verb better describes Lyall Howard's involvement with the plantations? How is working in a servo (more) notable? How can the war record of JH's father and grandfather be relevant if, as you infer, there has to be a direct link to JH in order for sufficient relevance to be proven? Again, consider the significance of the investment decisions. They were substantial and became a matter of controversy, then and now. --Bren 08:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bren. Basically, I don't see why the detail should be left out. At the moment the section reads funny, as "They later.." has no prior, once the plantations are left out. Also, there is not even the slightest implication of wrong doing, as no law was broken. It's even possible that the plantation investment helped providing for the first garage (even the article just speculates here), however, the version with the inclusion of the offshore plantation reads more fluid, adds neutral detail with similar relevance as the other details mentioned in the section to John Howard. --Lord Chao 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about John Howard, not Lyall Howard. John Howard worked at his father's service station. He didn't have anything to do with the plantations. There is no evidence that he knew anything about them until years later. If anyone wants to know about Lyall Howard, follow the link, where the story is relevant. Please quit trying to wedge it in here, where it isn't relevant. And, Bren, for clarity's sake, please learn the difference between "infer" and "imply". --Pete 01:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pete, this talkpage is for discussing the John Howard bio, not the correctness of my talkpage grammar. The clarity of my position seems to be problematic for you alone. You keep avoiding critical questions and repeating your unchanged position. This comes across as you refusing to 'get the point'. Please engage in the ongoing discussion by responding substantively to valid rebuttals/questions.
If "not [being an article about] Lyall Howard" means that facts exclusively about Lyall Howard should not be included in JH's bio, then shouldn't the wartime activity of Lyall and his father be excluded too?
Currently, between this RfC and the original discussion, there remains amply more users in favour (of at least a small plantation mention) than against. Please acknowledge concensus. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 15:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You can't vote to make something notable when it's not. There is no source linking JH with the plantations. As for the war, LH and JH discussed it during LH's last year, as noted in the Barnett biography, first chapter. --Pete 19:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pete, you are displaying symptoms of MPOV. Please explain your understanding of concensus and voting. More people have agreed that the plantation mention is notable. Why do you not accept this?

How does JH & LH having a pre-mortem chat about the war make it more notable than this significant series of family investments (about which, reportage has been made, JH has declined public comment, and an investigation was conducted at the time by the federal Investigation Branch)?

How could JH have not known of the copra plantations, given the chronology of events (in the Marr article)? To whit:

But the transfer of Kavilo [plantation] was never registered, an omission only discovered by a baffled custodian in 1960. Month after month, letters demanding action from Lyall Howard went unanswered by solicitors. Finally the custodian wrote to the Howard family home in William Street, Earlwood. But Lyall had died of chronic bronchitis in 1955 and only his widow and son John - law graduate and Young Liberal - were left at home. The paperwork for Kavilo's transfer was at last completed in 1962.

Are you saying that JH, a legal graduate, would not have helped his widowed mother to at least sort out the legal paperwork?
--Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 05:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not engage in original research, our job as editors is not to speculate. What exactly do you know about John Howard his mother and legal paperwork? Not much? didn't think so. Wikipedia is for sourced relevant facts only. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 07:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Stating that the Howard family invested in copra plantations is not original research. Verifiability and notability have been well established. The RfC question is whether the plantation investment is of sufficient relevance to be briefly mentioned in the John Howard article (the same way LH & his father's petrol station and war participation are). The consensus says yes. Whereas, Prester John, you have reverted 3 times in spite of consensus and despite your minimal participation thus far in this discussion. You asserted that you did so on the basis of consensus (here & here) yet you do not support that claim on the talkpage here. If you have new valid information or rebuttal, please state it. In the meantime, please respect the actual consensus, avoid wikilawyering and keep it civil in your edit summaries (eg. "at least try to spell it right", per here, is neither substantive nor civil as an edit summary). --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points Prester Johns comment about or is correct in response to Brendan Lloyd's Are you saying that JH, a legal graduate, would not have helped his widowed mother to at least sort out the legal paperwork comment. As for the inclusion of the Plantation in this article it adds nothing to the article. The Lyall Howard article addresses his involvement in the scheme. Without any documentation(cites) that say JH had direct involvement in the plantations like he did with the service station then its irrelevant to JH article. Gnangarra 08:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Gnan, consensus exists for inclusion. Like Prester John and Skyring (Pete), you are repeating already-refuted arguments. JH had no connection with his father and grandfather's war experience either, so if the plantation mention doesn't belong on that basis, neither does the war involvement. The two are of equivalent relevance to the JH article. Do you think both should stay or go? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 08:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not actually an argument. Sorry. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 08:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing in this discussion that says consensus of any variety exists, an RFC is a request for comments. Gnangarra 08:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The material is clearly of interest, is relevant, and is well-sourced, and should be included. However, in my opinion, the wording should be changed to reflect the true nature of the arrangements. At present, it reads as though the Howards simply owned the plantations in a straightforward way, and this is hardly correct. The Wikipedia notability guideline WP:N specifies that "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines." Thus, those above who suggest that this matter must satisfy WP:N are incorrect. AussieBoy 08:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Aussieboy the issue of the plantation has no bearing on John Howard it does on Lyall and an article exists for Lyall which already covers the plantation Gnangarra 08:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
resp to Brendan yes the para should go from Howard grew up in the Sydney suburb of Earlwood. His father and his paternal grandfather, Walter Howard, were both veterans of the First AIF in World War I. After the war, they acquired a number of copra plantations in New Guinea and ran a petrol station and mechanical workshop in Dulwich Hill, where John Howard worked as a boy. to something less detailed like Howard grew up in the Sydney suburb of Earlwood. His father owned a petrol station and mechanical workshop in Dulwich Hill, where John Howard worked as a boy.. Gnangarra 08:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep out, please. There is no reason for this to be in John Howard's biography. The information is discussed in the Lyall Howard article, where it should be. I can't see any reason to include it here except to try to smear JH via the business activities of his father. Something along the lines of what Gnang suggested is what I would endorse, though I think his father's name should be included and wikilinked. Sarah 09:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Gnangarra and Sarah. Keep it to an absolute minimum, if it's there at all. Recurring dreams 09:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Either war + plantations should both stay or both go (consistency). My current preference is stay. Both elements together give a pithy insight into John Howard's early family life and significant events therein. Removing detail risks understating that.

Prester John, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS pertains to differences between articles, not highlighting facts of equivalent relevance within the same article. WP:POINT#Examples implies the latter is appropriate. Please avoid disruptive editing (ie. ignoring concensus). --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 09:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

John Howard worked at his father's petrol station. We have multiple sources for this. He discussed his father's war service, so he knew his father was a veteran. We have a source for this. I haven't checked, but I dare say I can find a recent quote from JH referring to his father's war service. We don't know that he had any knowledge or involvement with the copra plantation scheme. We don't have a source for his father owning or acquiring copra plantations, so we can't say they were plantation owners. JH hasn't talked about it, so we don't have a source that way. LH's dummying is fully explained in the Lyall Howard article, which is only a keystroke away. --Pete 16:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

wording proposal

As I suggested earlierdiff the current wording

Howard grew up in the Sydney suburb of Earlwood. His father and his paternal grandfather, Walter Howard, were both veterans of the First AIF in World War I. After the war, they acquired a number of copra plantations in New Guinea and ran a petrol station and mechanical workshop in Dulwich Hill, where John Howard worked as a boy.

change it to

Howard grew up in the Sydney suburb of Earlwood. Lyall owned a petrol station and mechanical workshop in Dulwich Hill, where John Howard worked as a boy.

Sarah request for Lyall Howard to be wikilinked has already occurred in the preceding paragraph so a repeat isnt required . Gnangarra 12:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Support change. The only thing I would quibble with is referring to his father by his first name. I didn't realise the name was already linked (should've checked) and agree it shouldn't be linked again. Sarah 12:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Support change. I don't think it's notable in the first place but a brief mention and a link over to Lyall Howard is satisfactory. (PS: just putting it up here to avoid the collapse of discussion that has occured below - perhaps a formal RfC is needed rather than what is occuring here?). Shot info 08:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject change. Elegant simplicity is extremely tempting... but I think the article would lose relevant nuance by omitting those brief mentions of the war & the plantations. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 14:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm staggered by the sensitivity over this plantation info. To me, it was just an interesting/quirky fact about his family circumstances. As we approach the Australian election on Nov 7, I would not have thought that this issue would affect anyone's vote, but I guess the sensitivity of the issue here shows that many people worry it might. I think the facts themselves are beyond dispute (ie, they did own the plantations), but my guess is that this sensitivity is over the issue of whether inclusion of the info would smear the Prime Minister's reputation. If it was an issue of importance (ie Notability) then there would also be similar sensitivity over other facts about his family, such as his mother's former job as an office worker, or his brother later working as a solicitor, or the father/grandfather's war service. But if we use the issue of notability as a reason to throw out the plantation issue, then that should apply to the entire article, and those other facts about his family would also have to go. BTW, the words "petrol station" should be plural, there was more than one, which is how it was written in an early version of the article, but someone changed it back to singular for unknown reason.Lester2 22:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, a very strange coincidence is that the Howard family estate of Marangis (type 'Marangis, Madang Papua New Guinea' into Google Maps) which is situated on Karkar Island is remarkably close to Manus Island (off the coast of Madang, North East PNG) where the Howard Government later established a holding camp for asylum seekers.Lester2 23:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
It is an interesting quirky fact about Lyall, but its original inclusion here was based on a soapbox piece about JH and worded here so as to imply that JH was associated with some impropriety(WP:NPOV,guilt by association), unlike the two Petrol stations JH didnt have an direct contact or experiences from the two Plantations, not an implied numerous plantations. Inclusion here offers nothing of value in relation to JH, it does with relation to Lyall Howard and that why its included in that article. Gnangarra 01:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of wording, if the senior Howards actually owned the plantations, even as absentee landlords, then we could say they were plantation owners, and it would be valid. But a close study of the sources doesn't show that they bought or owned or acquired or did anything else to or with the copra plantations other than lending their names. Title didn't transfer until the final payments and the sources are silent on whether the Howards actually ended up owning the plantations. So if we can't say that Lyall and his father owned or acquired plantations, then just how would we mention the involvement? --Pete 01:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I like this wording. Also, Lester2's 23:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC) comment is a near-textbook definition of WP:OR, so I sincerely hope no-one even suggests mentioning it in the article proper. Daniel 05:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I just made a minor change to the paragraph that is currently displayed. I moved the references so they sit alongside appropriate text, so we can see which references refer to what, and also changed the petrol station to "two petrol stations". The change is pretty minor, so I hope that doesn't cause any problems. Lester2 09:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the wording change, all Lyall detail can go to his page. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 21:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I support a brief mention of the 3 family activities: War service, Plantations, two petrol stations. I don't think it attacks anyone, nor does it suggest anything illegal (there was nothing illegal anyway). It sets up the family circumstances that the subject (JH) came from, which is normal and common in Wiki bios of world leaders.Lester2 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the wording change. The material is clearly interesting, relevant and well-sourced. That is all that is required. If anything, the nature of the dummying should be made explicit. Gnangarra, you said "Aussieboy the issue of the plantation has no bearing on John Howard it does on Lyall and an article exists for Lyall which already covers the plantation". I and many others do think it is relevant. David Marr makes the relevance quite clear. You may disagree with him (or may dislike/distrust him), but that is not the point. The material was relevant enough to JH to feature in stories in national newspapers. On Wikipedia, we do not express our own opinions or do original research, but use material which others have written/researched elsewhere. Again, for those who are confused (on both "sides"), notability is not an issue here (see my comments above). Pete, you said "its original inclusion here was based on a soapbox piece about JH and worded here so as to imply that JH was associated with some impropriety". There is simply no evidence whatsoever that this is the case, and attribution of motive to other editors like that is wrong and irrelevant. AussieBoy 00:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

well that was as clear as mud. I like the bit where "David Marr makes the relevance quite clear", in fact it is so clear I'm not even going to tell you what that relevance is........ So what is the relevance again? Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 00:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, that was as helpful as garbage, Prester. Picking one sentence out of a well-expressed viewpoint and attack it while ignoring the substantive points hardly demostrates good faith nor does it shows a willingness to constructively participate in talkpage discussion.

    This tussle, over a mere few words that add depth and perspective to the article in a neutral way, is astonishing. Compare the "Early Life" section of the Howard article to the equivalent section for Tony Blair and then make an argument that the plantation acquisition fact is irrelevant. Then let's have a robust discussion about consistency (viz how much factual detail is too much and/or not of sufficient relevance).

    I'm not convinced that the subjective arguments, contained in the Marr piece, about Howard's character are sufficiently relevant. That's why i have never argued for them, despite Prester John claiming (in a 3RR report against me) that I posted slanderous material. Prester, kindly refrain from misrepresenting my position.

    I am convinced that a broad outline of the known major historical events/influences in Howards family life are relevant. The latter do not require John Howard's explicit awareness of them in order to reasonably demonstrate Wiki-relevance. Biographies of Living Persons are not mere reflections on what that person claims to know. In this case, as stated before (but apparently ignored altogether by some):

"It is relevant knowledge [in] that [it] adds to the overall body of research about a significant historical figure. It provides a more nuanced insight into Howard's background and immediate family. It paints a fuller picture than otherwise achieved by the reference's absence. It's inclusion in the article is reasonable and appropriate. It's exclusion creates a perception of bias."

--Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 03:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Brendan, did you really just quote yourself? Your posistion on that has been tabled above, rewriting the same again in italics and trying to pass it of as a quote does this RFC no justice. You have declared that you have read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS yet you have continued to push this argument by introducing the "Tony Blair" article. Read the policy again and understand how that article is not relevant to this one. Speaking of relevance, typing in bold letters how convinced you 'are, is not really an argument. When you have to use phrases like "painting a fuller picture" and "nuance", it shows you are just grasping at straws. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 04:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Prester John, unlike you, I haven't "passed" anything off on Wikipedia as something it is not (eg. your disproven sockpuppetry allegation, your malicious claim that I am slandering John Howard, etc). When you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of substantive rebuttals to your feeble assertions, and attack my text formatting (seriously?!) rather than address the issue, it becomes eminently clear just who exactly is grasping at straws. Repetition seems the only recourse -- maybe, eventually, you'll get the point, rather than ignoring it, and cease asking questions that have been well answered. BTW, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay/guideline. I'm surprised you expect religious adherence to it, given your own demonstrable disregard, at times, for Wikipedia policy. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 04:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We keep going around the same mulberry bush how about instead of just saying it's relevent say why I'm open to reconsidering my thoughts on the wording. So what makes the Plantation relevant to JH? Gnangarra 02:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gnangarra. If the Howard family owned a clothes store in Kogarah, I'd want to know about that too, even if JH never worked in it. Because he is Prime Minister, and he shapes the country's economic direction according to his ideology. Same goes for Kevin Rudd, who may (or may not) shape it in a different direction. It's relevant to us, the public, to know the economic circumstances of these people who lead, or want to lead. If a leader's family was destitute, you'd want to know. If a leader's family had 10 limousines and lived in mansions, you'd want to know. However, I don't think a leader should be either praised or criticised for their family assets (or lack of), as they were born into it. But lots of people would want to know. As it turns out, while the Howard's led a very comfortable existence, it seems to be more humble than some previous Liberal Party leaders, such as Malcolm Fraser. Lester2 03:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but why does it need to go in this article? All this background information is in the Lyall Howard article which is linked to from here. If people are interested in reading about Lyall Howard and his jobs, investments and such, they can do so just one click away. Please explain why it should be in this article when we already link to the Lyall article for people like you (and me) who find the information interesting. Sarah 03:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Malcolm Fraser thats a good comparison it mentions just a property in Deniliquin and Toorak in Melbourne as the places relevant to him, because he was there for some reason. It doesnt mention anything beyond that, there's no detail into is fathers/grand fathers income and investments, so why is Lyalls and Walters relevant to JH? Gnangarra 05:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
And for balance Bob Hawke doesnt mention any property, investments in relation to his parents either. Gnangarra 05:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Malcolm Fraser and Bob Hawke articles still leave the reader with an impression of financial circumstances. Maybe those two are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Fraser's father was a "wealthy grazier" (we can conclude they were awash with funds) and Hawke's father was a church minister, who more than likely had no reasonable investments.
I think there is little maneuvering room to further compromise. The original version of the text was much longer and more detailed (much of that detail is in the Lyall Howard article.) In subsequent edits, it has been pared down to a bare-bones mention of the plantations. I don't think it can be reduced further without deleting it altogether. Unless the editors opposed to mentioning the plantations can think of any other way to word the plantation info in a way acceptable to them, I think the compromises on both sides have reached about as far as each is willing. I hope the RfC can be concluded soon, one way or another, so we can move on from this issue. I'd like to thank Gnan and Sarah for discussing this in a civil manner, despite our differing views on the subject.--Lester2 23:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gnangarra & Sarah. Unlike Malcolm Fraser, Howard has publically emphasised certain notable elements of his family history and avoided others. This led to media contention and comment that JH represents his family history in a non-neutral way. This is reinforced by the inconsistent situation we have here: some editors, whose edits/userpages/talkpage comments demonstrate a clear political persuasion, oppose the plantation info (perceived by some as negative) but remain conspicuously in favour of keeping the mentions to the war history of Lyall & his father (perceived by some as positive).

Given the relevance of the plantation episode to Howard's immediate family and its financial situation, the significance of the monies involved, the fact that family details in a BLP are not unusual, that exclusion of the details would diminish NPOV, a small neutral factual plantation mention should be included (as was present prior to yet another non-consensual revert by John Prester), with references to more detailed information for those interested. I believe the basic fact should be included and let the reader explore and come to their own view. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 04:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What malarkey. We don't have any source saying that "monies" changed hands, let alone their significance. We don't have a source saying the senior Howards ever owned or had any sort of claim to the plantations. The Lyall Howard article gives what few details there are and there is nothing at all relevant to John Howard. He had no involvement with the plantations, and we have no source saying there was any effect on him or his family. If something new and concrete comes up, we can revisit the question. I'm getting very weary of spurious arguments and leaps of logic, and it's high time to bury this dead horse. --Pete 04:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
To User:Skyring(Pete): The references provided, that you and User:Prester John keep deleting, state that the servicemen were paid an annual fee (rent) by Carpenters, for the use of the land.--Lester2 05:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pete, if none of the matters you mentioned have been proven, then what are they doing in the Lyall Howard article? As far as I can tell, you are the only person contesting the plantation facts. That does not constitute a consensus for its removal on those grounds, nor does it constitute consensus for removing it on the spurious grounds of your own personal impatience. This is Wikipedia, not Petepedia. Please avoid 3RR and desist from reverting while the matter under contention is still being discussed --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 04:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Here in BLP's "when in doubt keep it out". The consensus in bio's is for information inclusion, not deletion. The current edit warring to keep info in "because their is no consensus" is not supported by policy. The fact that there is no consensus for the edits per WP:BLP means that the information needs to be excluded. Also, please assume good faith and no personal attacks. Shot info 05:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of any notability, it is simply untrue to say the Howards acquired the plantations. There is no statement saying this. They didn't own them, they didn't operate them, they didn't live on them, they didn't visit them. I can't find any mention of annual rent paid to the Howards. Let's stick with facts, not guesses. --Pete 05:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand the BLP rules are for uncited and libelous claims. The information about plantations was supported by numerous newspaper articles. People have debated the merits of the information, but it is no way libelous. As I said before, the plantation information was initially much more detailed, and included historical quotes etc. As the discussion has progressed, the amount of plantation information has been reduced, with the agreement of all editors. This at least shows some consensus forming, with all parties agreeing that the initial long-form information be dropped. However the only reason I accept a reduction of information is to help reach consensus. The difficulty here is that User:Prester John and Skyring(Pete) keep deleting everything completely from the online article. Because of this, I wish to retract my agreement for a briefer version of the plantation information, in favour of the original long-form version with a more detailed description of the plantation saga.Lester2 05:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you do understand BLP if that's what you think it's just about. Of course there is WEIGHT to consider, plus you are now just trying to make a WP:POINT. Unfortunately I agree with John/Pete because they are following policy, in this regard. This is why you are having problems with WP and why the overall Community is not interviening on your behalf. You might not agree with policy but there are avenues to put this through. Shot info 06:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
BLP has no bearing here, if it can be demonstrated that Howard's upbringing is relevant to his notability. Hornplease 09:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
What article are you reading? BLP has no bearing in a Biography of a Living Person? Shot info 00:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Pete, you keep asserting that the Howards didn't own/buy/acquire/invest in/take an interest in/etc the copra plantations. This POV of yours has been responded to ad nauseum. Instead of acknowledging those responses, you ignore those points and slavishly repeat your interpretation of the sources. Please re-read those points, or at least indicate WHAT involvement you do accept the Howards had with the copra plantations (given that you are the only editor questioning the facts). Reverting on the basis of your sole opinion is not consensus --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 05:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This information is not notable for John Howard although as it has been pointed out (to death) it is appropriate for Lyall Howard. BTW, Pete isn't the only editor "questioning" the facts. I have my doubts over the reliability of the opinion pieces being offered as RS, and there are zero, zip, nada third party sources to tell us of the notability of this information. In fact one needs to begin to ask, why are you and Lester so desperate to get this information into this article? Normally with other WP articles, when editors war over small points, it's very often over something not notable, like this... Shot info 06:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Shot info, those insinuations are irrelevant and unncecessary. I've already stated my rational reasons:

  • Relevance: This is a Biography of a Living Person. Facts about immediate family are usual. The 'Early Life' section already makes reference to other attributes of the Howard family (income, working life and military careers), the relevance of which are not disputed. The plantation investment is of equivalent relevance. Otherwise, if plantation info is to be excluded on relevance grounds, so too should be his dad's & grandad's military history (as John Howard was not directly involved in his father's war history and a pre-mortem chat with his dad does not constitute notable involvement). Detractors of the plantation info are tellingly silent on this point.
  • Accuracy: Material from the Australian National Archive shows payments made by Carpenters to the Howards and a paper trail right up to the belated transfer of Kavilo plantation:
    • "Records in the National Archives show Carpenters paid Lyall Howard every penny he needed to put down deposits on the first two plantations - plus £540 more." Shows financial involvement.
    • "When the third and last tranche of plantations was offered for sale in July 1927, Lyall Howard put up his hand to pay £60,100 for a big place on a remote island near Manus". Shows financial involvement.
    • "... these plantations were conducted in the name of a couple of mechanics from Dulwich Hill ... The files are fat with pleas from Carpenters for concessions of one kind or another because their "clients" the Howards could not pay". Shows that the Carpenter recognising the Howards as the legal owner.
    • "In late 1930, the Howards signed new mortgages over Kavilo, Agita and Enuk for a total of more than £17,000.". You can't sign a mortgage over something if you don't have some legal title over it.

--Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 06:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bren, your arguement is hinging on something which isn't covered by policy "Facts about immediate family are usual". Nope not policy. So it can and has been disputed. Shot info 06:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Then how do you justify the inclusion of material about the war (in which Howard had no involvement)? Or are you agreeing with the removal of those details too? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the article, not the editors. If it makes you feel better, just blame it on the spacelizards. Shot info 07:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It's only OK for you to comment on editors. Where's that policy? Nice way of dodging the substantive question and the detailed referencing of the factual Howard family involvement with the plantations, by the way ;) --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have commented, several times. Asking the same questions over and over again doesn't imply that they need to be answered over and over again. BTW, thanks for commenting on the article. Not the editor. Here's the policy by the way ;) Shot info 07:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Shot info, where are the "several comments" about the above specific quotes from the Marr article (from either yourself or Skying/Pete)?. All I'm seeing is you both insisting that the article reveals nothing of the sort despite article quotes to the contrary. So long as that continues, the claim, that the factual basis of the Howard plantation involvement is flimsy, remains itself flimsy. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sighh, you really want to escalate this don't you. Time for some WP:DENY. Shot info 08:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please engage with the ongoing article content discussion (as above) instead of quoting Wikipedia essays. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 08:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the detail of the exchanges above, lets keep focused on the article content. NAA only retains information that is created and held by Governement departments, it doesnt hold any records that relate to transactions between private individuals and and private companies. Brendan highlighted point above suggest otherwise, though this I think is in confusion with a claim that NAA has an ASIO(its predecessor) documentation that directly raising concerns and specifically names the Senior Howards involvement. Secondly I have done an online search of NAA and have been able unable to view any records that relate to claims of investigations into Lyall and the plantation there does appear to be a record generated that relates to the purchase of the properties but it not its viewable online. I'm planning on spending an afternoon in the next couple of weeks at the NAA offices in Perth(Victoria Park) to see if I can find anything and get copies.
Pete/Shot info, With whats been printed Lyall and Walter did have some form of ownership. The purpose/process of using dummies is the only way in which the companies could avoid the higher initial capital investment, the exact form of ownership isnt relevent. Many of the newspapers being quoted are Fairfax papers running the Marr story, or other papers commenting on the Marr story that does raise concerns about RS. Walters and Lyalls WWI service I think is relevent to JH as he frequently refers to that when talking to and about Australian service personnel. I'm also comfortable about conceding the exclusion of this to resolve the issue as the war service is covered in the Lyall article.
In everything I've read, its become an extrordinary amount on a subject I have nothing but a passing interesting in, without this discussion I wouldnt have even taken any notice of Lyall at all. The conclusion I have come to is that there is nothing to make to plantations relevent to JH. The strongest reason put forward is that sections of the media are asserting that JH is only portraying his family in a non-neutral way, that doesnt make the plantation notable. Gnangarra 11:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The question of "ownership" is relevant when discussing wording. There is general agreement that the senior Howards lent their names as ex-diggers so that Carpenters could benefit from the more generous purchase terms. Carpenters put up the money, rather than the Howards. However, I cannot find any statement that the Howards actually owned the plantations. Brendan's interpretations above fall far short of this, and rely on opinion pieces rather than original sources - I suggest that the term "mortgage" is not an exact description of the arrangement entered into, as it seems that there was no loan or bank involved, merely an agreement with the trustee to buy the plantations over twenty years.
For this reason, I cannot support any wording saying that the Howards were plantation-owners, or similar wording implying this. Such a statement is simply not true and on that basis can be repeatedly removed from a BLP. Ownership of the plantations remained with the trustee until the final payment was made, as the source clearly states.
If we can agree on some other wording giving the true situation, then I might be able to support that, but then the question of relevance comes into play. Just how, precisely, is all this relevant to John Howard, who, so far as we know, had no involvement or knowledge of the scheme? The plantation story is colourful and interesting, but it is only relevant to Lyall Howard, not his son. --Pete 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Just on the wording, it would need to accurately describe the situation de jure. How would the law at the time have viewed the arrangement. My reading of the material and limited legal knowledge is that the Howards were the legal owners. One cannot transfer title or take mortgages on things that one doesn't already have legal title (ownership) over. The existence of a liability in respect of an asset does not nullify legal title over that asset, unless and until such conditions occur that permit the asset to be seized for the extinguishment of debt, or other agreed lawful conditions. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 16:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
When the Herald published revelations last year about John Howard's father and his connections to a copra plantation in New Guinea, the Prime Minister was lampooned on the cover of the South Pacific's major news magazine, Islands Business, as the archetypal colonial boss man, in a safari suit astride the words "Oceania's Overlord". The khakis and pith helmet were just another confirmation of how Australia was viewed by its accident-prone Pacific neighbours[1]--Lester2 18:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Lester, you need to return to this planet. Brendan, the Age article clearly states that title didn't pass until the price had been paid off:
Only a few pages of the fat files on the Howard holdings in the National Archives carry their signatures. All the business of Kavilo, Marangis, Enuk and Agita — along with at least 20 more plantations — was conducted by Carpenters. Those files survive because, until the last penny of the purchase price was paid, title to the plantations remained with a Rabaul official called the Custodian of Expropriated Properties.
The SMH article talks of "nominal owners", which sounds about right. --Pete 21:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Nominally owned" has a whiff of POV about it. Is it an accurate de jure description of the involvement? I wonder how (if at all) the Investigation Branch records describe it. Hmmm... how about "took interests in"? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If 'nominally owned' is in the sources, that is what it should be. We aren't lawyers, we just hope the sources know what they're doing. Hornplease 09:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds forced. And just how do you get relevance to John Howard from the took "took interests in" of his father? --Pete 20:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There being no vital objection thus far to the concept that, after the war, the Howards "took nominal ownership of" or "nominally acquired" a number of New Guinea copra plantations, that seems to address accuracy.
Back to relevance. This info is germane to Howard's assertion of his upbringing with "hard work and honesty", as per JH's 1996 Four Corners quote. If that quote is to be included in isolation, sans any known critical assessment (eg. from contemporaneous media analysis, as per news articles from 2006-2007) then we are simply accepting a single first person perspective, from the point of view of the subject himself and a politican no less, as fact. This introduces potential bias into the article.
However, rather than insert a boring analysis attempting to reconcile the copra plantation ownership with John Howard's comments about his upbringing, it seems more useful, practical, and encyclopedic to mention only the most basic of facts, without excessive diminution, and include a link to the sources, so the encyclopedia can avoid bias and the reader can come to their own conclusion.
It is right and proper that the reader be enabled to do so. This should not require them to click on "Lyall Howard", as the question of the congruence of Howard's claims about his upbringing, relative to what is known about the plantations, is a matter directly relating to John Howard, and therefore relevant. This is before even considering the significant monies that were moved around in the Howard name (compared to the assessed worth of the Howards at the time AND in real terms) and the overall significance of the decision by the family to assume nominal ownership of the plantation.
Whether John Howard knew of it at the time is immaterial. An encyclopedic biography of a notable person is not restricted purely to matters/events about which that person can be shown to have had knowledge about at the time (as that would bias the bio in general favour of the subject).
In summary, the material is relevant and should be included in proportion to its significance (ie. relative to other mentioned events/matters in the John Howard bio and the proportions in which they are included). Insertion of "After the war, they took nominal ownership of a number of New Guinea copra plantations." suffices in that respect. QED. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 15:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
"After the war, they took nominal ownership of a number of New Guinea copra plantations." The reader is entitled to ask, just WTF has this "nominal ownership" got to do with John Howard? The answer, according to our best sources, is nothing.
Another point. There seems to be a misconception in the minds of some editors here that consensus is a matter of counting noses. It's not. Consensus is finding a solution that all but extremists and cranks can accept. --Pete 02:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Skyring Pete, the answer to your question on relevance is already to be found in my prior comment. Meanwhile, please remain civil. Rude acronyms are simply unnecessary. On consensus, if we go by your interpretation, who decides who extremists and cranks are? Are you saying that the numerous editors who took a different view to you are "extremists and cranks"? Can you rephrase your view of consensus in terms of Wikipedia policy? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 02:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Your argument for relevance seems to be that JH's comments on hard work and honesty in growing up are incompatible with his father's involvement in the plantations. However, this scheme wasn't illegal, no dishonesty is shown, and there is no denying the hard work shown by LH in his war service and petrol station business. As for your other comments, you are reading more into my words than was ever put into them. Chill. --Pete 03:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm not arguing his statement of upbringing is incompatible with the plantation arrangements. That's a POV debate and not relevant to BLP.
I am arguing that relevance of the plantation info derives primarily from the existence of contemporary media reports between 2006-2007 critically questioning the compatibility of JH's upbringing recollection with what National Archives say about the nominal plantation ownerships and the resulting investigation by the historical forerunner to ASIO. The latter itself is a highly notable event, just as would be controversies about members of family of any other political figure, regardless of that figure's involvement in, or knowledge of, the controversy when it happened.
Relying on JH's upbringing quote uncritically (to the exclusion of reputable criticms to the contrary) creates bias in favour of the subject. Including the basic fact of the plantation nominal ownership, with a ref to the Marr article, brings balance, without creating a POV debate within the BLP itself. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 12:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
As its Marrs critisim that your basis for relevance then maybe it should be covered instead of focusing on the plantation.. Also as I have reiterated before searching NAA archives does not support the claims in relation to any investigation into Lyall Howard by forerunner to ASIO, NAA has three documents that a search for Layll Howard returns.
  • HOWARD Lyall Falconer : Service number - 803 : Place of birth - Maclean NSW : Place of enlistment - Lismore NSW : Next of kin (Father) HOWARD W
  • MIBUS LYALL HOWARD : Service Number - 39387 : Date of birth - 18 Aug 1930 : Place of birth - DIMBOOLA VIC :
  • HOWARD, Lyall Falconer [Repatriation case file; includes R and C files] [box 5418]
As detailed only two records that appear to relate directly to Lyall Howard, I have requested the Repat case file viewing will subject to cost, unless someone can view in Sydney office where its held. Gnangarra 13:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: Nominal Ownership It's like a house mortgage. Think of Lyall Howard as the house owner, and the New Guinea administrator as the bank. Lyall had to make regular payments to the Administrator. I guess it's debatable, but when someone takes out a mortgage on a house, we don't usually say they "nominally own" the house. We usually consider that they do own the house, even though money may be owed to the bank. The Howards then leased out the land to Carpenters & Co, and the Howards were paid a monthly rent. In the original David Marr newspaper story, it says "In 1949, the Howards had sold the last of their holdings to Carpenters.". They sold their land holdings. The fact is, the land was in the Howard's name, even though the Howards were paying it off to the New Guinea Administrator, and Carpenters Co was paying the Howards rent on it.
Is this wording a sticking point to finding consensus? That is, whether we say they "owned plantations", "nominally owned", "acquired" or simply "had land holdings"? Is the debate over wording worthwhile? Are there some editors who will be swayed if the wording is change? If some editors will be swayed, then it's worth debating alternative wording, but both sides need to be genuinely open to wording changes for it to be a useful debate. The recent deletion of alternative wording leads me to wonder whether some editors really want to compromise.
Re: National Archives I delved into the National Archives when researching the Lyall Howard article. You may have followed some of the links there. Most of the archives are not online. Is there anything to be gained by visiting the Sydney office of the National Archives? Are we trying to dispute The Age and Sydney Morning Herald" stories? Hypothetically, if I paid the money and performed primary research and accessed the files, then posted back here to say that I can verify the information because I saw it myself at the National Archives, would that benefit the article? It would be nice if the entire article received this level of verification, as there are still large sections of the J.H article with no references at all. Cheers, Lester2 01:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The gain from using NAA is in the reliability and verifiability of the source, by using documentation that isnt politically motivated especially in relation to ownership and text quotes, that would just relevance to JH to resolved. Gnangarra 02:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Gnangarra, you said "that doesnt (sic) make the plantation notable". As clearly explained previously, notability for an individual fact is not required. To maintain that it is contradicts Wikipedia policy. Pete, on your argument, Carpenter's would not have "owned" the plantations either had they been paying directly, rather than through the Howards. This is an absurd argument, rather reminiscent of your bizarre, long-winded, Wiki-stalking-ridden battle to have Wikipedia express the false view that the Governor-General, rather than the Queen, is Australia's Head of State. It is entirely reasonable to cite the available newspaper articles as a source for the information on the plantations--there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The fact that some people don't like/trust David Marr is completely irrelevant, as we all know very well. Further, the amount of background in articles on other political figures is irrelevant to the amount/type of detail in this article. Any Wikipedia editor worth their salt knows that (or do you need me to cite the relevant policy for you?). Brendan Lloyd has clearly explained (yet again) the relevance (which of course was also clearly explained by David Marr). Of course, the reason the press published this material in the first place is because of its relevance to John Howard (not Lyall Howard!). What could be clearer? It is not up to us to do original research to prove that the material is NOT relevant. AussieBoy 04:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still can't quite see the relevance to this article's subject, despite all the hand-waving. John Howard had nothing to do with the plantations, according to our best sources. The only link is through Lyall Howard, and surprise, surprise, we have a wikilink in the article. I think that Wikipedia thus elegantly reflects the reality. --Pete 05:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no "hand-waving" involved. The relevance is there for all to see in the published articles (and is further explained above): all we do at Wikipedia is represent that. Even if you cannot quite see the relevance yourself, can you not at least concede that many other people do think it very relevant (hence the publication of and interest in the newspaper articles) and that it should therefore be included? AussieBoy 08:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
More hand-waving. What sells newspapers is not necessarily what we want in our encyclopaedia, thank you very much. --Pete 09:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yet another illogical argument, Pete. Nobody has maintained that the material should be included because it "sells newspapers". Thus, you have provided a textbook example of a straw man argument. And you are misusing the term hand waving, in spite of your repeated use of it. How about addressing the real arguments that have been presented? AussieBoy 10:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The argument over whether plantation info is notable/not notable is going in circles, and reminds me of Bugs & Daffy "it's duck season" / "no it's wabbit season". I'm eager for an independent adjudicator to step in and make that comment soon, one way or the other, so we can wrap it up and move onto the next sentence in the article ;)
I'd also like the RfC to comment on whether the information in the article should have been deleted while the discussion progressed.Lester2 23:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course the information should not have been deleted while the discussion progressed. But don't expect much different around here! Also, you stated "The argument over whether plantation info is notable/not notable is going in circles". As pointed out previously, WP:N specifies that "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines." AussieBoy 04:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Normally when there is discussion of a "fact" within an article and it's notability with regards to that article, WP:WEIGHT is actually the policy in question, not WP:N which refers to the inclusion of an article per se into Wikipedia itself. Also one must be careful about the nature of information with regards to bios and per the policy info can be deleted without discussion. The inclusion of contentious material is what is to be discussed. Also more info included here that should be at Lyall Howard can be accused of being a content fork or at worst a WP:POVFORK. Shot info 06:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Shot, reams have been written already about relevance/significance of the plantation fact. Included therein was a rational view that the weight of that fact, in the wordings/forms in which it has been variously proposed for inclusion, is in proportion to other facts of similar relevance/significance that remain intact in the article (eg. Howard's mum's occupation). No substantive rebuttals addressing this are evident. How do your observations about Wiki policy/guideline/precedent/"what is normal" explain this apparent inconsistency? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 11:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

With the plantation the issue is WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, in all the discussion there has yet to be a reason presented that makes the inclusion the plantations anything but POV. Gnangarra 15:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The "rebuttal" is other editors believe it violates policy. That's all the rebuttal it needs. So far you have done nothing to form a consensus that it should be included in the expanded format (the consensus is for the brief format). BTW, This "inconsistency" cry of yours is at odds with editing Wikipedia and it doesn't need an explaination from myself nor any other editor. What I encourage you to do, is assume a bit of good faith and please refrain from any personal attacks. Also, based on this I am starting to see that you are not interested in editing Wikipedia but instead are engaged in trying to make a point to push your POV. Please stop this, it doesn't help improve the article and it encourages editors to dismiss your comments out of hand. Shot info 22:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Shot info, I personally think that the information regarding the plantations IS notable, but my point was simply that that was not required for inclusion, as some editors suggested. I also note that information about the Howard plantations is presented in the recent biography of Howard by Wayne Errington and Peter van Onselen. They clearly thought it relevant, and can hardly be accused of anti-Howard bias. What is your answer to that?

You admonish others to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks, then breach this principle yourself by accusing others of POV pushing in the very next sentence. It seems to me that the POV pushing is entirely on the side of a handful of editors including yourself, Pete Skyring, Gnangarra, and Prester John. The material is clearly relevant to Howard's well-known statements about his upbringing, e.g., the one quoted in Wikipedia about being "brought up in a home that sort of believed in the values of hard work and honesty and commitment to one’s country, and commitment to one’s community". Acting in a possibly illegal, and certainly unethical way for significant profit, as the Howards did can certainly be seen as very much at odds with this and "of relevance to the person's notability." as required by BLP. AussieBoy 02:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting, AussieBoy, that the recently published best selling book on John Howard has included the plantation affair. I never considered the Howards ownership of plantations was illegal (are there any published works that actually say it was illegal?) but the plantation subject is nonetheless interesting and worthy of inclusion in this article. The fact that the latest Howard biography covers it makes the Wiki article seem amiss to omit it. Lester2 02:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It is worth noting that the pertinent information within the published biography does include it the PNG info. And it is certainly illuminating from a Wikipedia perspective. The section is pp. 7-8 (in total about a page) of a 472p biography. So from a Wikipedian sense, it meets WEIGHT. And it is written almost entirely in the perspective of discussing Lyall Howard. There is a minor amount of what we here would call OR (on p.8 - which basically states what has been discussed here, namely the hint of foulplay, so the actual total information is less than 1 page) but overall, it is well worth reflecting on how a real biography is written, versus what editors are trying to overwhelm this biography with. Shot info 03:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the top of the RfC, you will see me agreeing with you. However I'm merely pointing out the ground rules (so to speak) for editors to help them understand why Wikipedia does things (and hence "other" editors seem to do things).
The next paragraph was a general line, with an addition (per the diff). Calling an editor out on an obvious POV isn't a PA. It's merely a friendly suggestion to help an editor to chill out a bit. Incidently the quote you mention is crammed full of weasel words feel free to remove them. I'm only commenting on the RfC (remember, the point of this section). Your use of weasel words ("possibly") to justify the inclusion of information is a redflag for other editors to doubt the actual notability of the information BTW. Shot info 02:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Shot info (and Prester John), please re-read my talkpage before deserting good faith by misapprehending that I am POV-pushing (or as Prester John claims, "flip-flopping"; aggressive Republican hyperbole has no place in a good faith discussion about article content). All I have sought is the inclusion of a bare minimum factual mention of the plantation ownership commensurate with its media coverage and in equivalent measure to that of other included matters of equivalent relevance. Please desist from misrepresenting my views and actions (again a departure from good faith). I also don't know what you mean by "expanded format". --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 03:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The original Plantation information in this article was much longer. That's the 'expanded format'. It included information about a government inquiry, and a quote from the auditor-general. As time went on, it was reduced in size until it was merely a mention that the family acquired plantations in New Guinea, which is the 'reduced format'. Lester2 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
And over time the information has been progressively moved in all details over to the Lyall Howard article, where nobody disputes the relevance. Unless the recent biography has some new information, the plantations remain irrelevant here. A biographical book has space and liberty to include material that a shorter treatment cannot. Published biographies frequently include material relevant to the main subject's parents and other relatives which has no relevance to the main subject. I highlight the distinction between this article, which doesn't include the story, and Wikipedia as a greater work, which does, suitably linked. We haven't lost or removed the plantation story, we've merely placed it in a more appropriate part of our encyclopaedia. --Pete 03:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
To User:Skyring(Pete), you "highlight the distinction" of this article not including any plantation info, but the only reason it doen't is because you and User:Prester John keep deleting it, along with its references, and any attempts to compromise with different wording. Can I assume, from that action, that you don't wish to compromise with the alternate versions that were presented? It's not like the information was libelous, and warranted your personal intervention to delete it. The text is (or was) one of the most well referenced parts of the article. It is included in the latest Howard biography because people want to know about it. --Lester2 04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Shot info, your statement "Your use of weasel words ("possibly") to justify the inclusion of information is a redflag for other editors to doubt the actual notability of the information BTW." constitutes a poor argument. In the Marr article, it is stated that the "Auditor-General wrote of the Howards in his 1928-29 report that he had "no doubt whatever that dummying exists" in their case, though he found "the offence is not so open and the pretence is better maintained" than in other schemes he had examined." This clearly indicates that the Auditor-General considered that there may be a criminal offence involved. What else would the use of the word "offence" in this context mean? The Marr article shows that there was signifiicant concern in the Government about dummying in general and the Howards' case in particular. The currently suggested version of the plantation issue uses ten words ("they acquired a number of copra plantations in New Guinea") in an article around 6000 words long. I personally favour a longer version where the contrast between the illegality and/or unethicalness of the transactions and John Howard's expressed version of his family's values can be seen. Nonetheless, the issue would hardly take up too much space and it is disingenuous to argue otherwise. AussieBoy 07:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the RfC comment I placed earlier to help things to possibly be clearer :-) (also I removed the pointless personal attack made in this space, feel free to wage war on each other's own talk pages thanks). Shot info 09:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that your tone is redolent of of incivility and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you have any real answers to my arguments, you should advance them. As you know, if you bothered to look, it was Pete Skyring who made an ad lapidem and ad hominem attack on me on my User page. Have a look (User:AussieBoy). So please represent the facts correctly. As I stated, the evidence indicates that there may have been a criminal offence involved in the Howards' dummying. The behaviour was clearly unethical and contradicts John Howard's expressed version of his family's values from which he appears to try to benefit. Would anyone like to argue the contrary, or is that too much of a stretch? AussieBoy 10:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Sighhh, I don't really care what you suggest of my tone. Policy tells you that it is inappropriate for you to engage in personal attacks. If you have a problem with Pete, by all means, discuss on your talkpage(s) or in appropriate venues (AN/I perhaps), not here. With regards to the remainder of your discussion, I have already made my views with this RfC quite clear. If you think that somehow I am being improper, by all means report me, otherwise... Shot info 10:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Groannnnn.....the very same policy "tells" us all that your personal attack above (which was pointed out) and your other insinuations are inappropriate too. And if you have already made your mind up, why bother pretending to engage? Again, there IS clear evidence indicating that the Howards' dummying was a criminal offence (and certainly unethical) and of significant concern to the Government, and it clearly does conflict with John Howard's version of his family's values from which he appears to try to benefit. The article quotes Howard's version. The plantation material is included in the recent Howard biography by Wayne Errington and Peter van Onselen (a former Liberal Party staffer). Thus there is a very strong case for its inclusion. AussieBoy 12:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Aussieboy there isnt clear evidence, clear evidence of an illegal act is a conviction in the appropriate court of law, until such time it can only be alleged, but this is about Lyall there isnt anything that says JH had any involvement with the scheme. The way it appears to me is that the reason you want it included in JH article is to disparage JH because what he remembers of his childhold doesnt include an investment his father made before he was born, that is a clear WP:NPOV voilation as well as WP:BLP violation. For a contempory comparison its like buying a new house in your wifes name to claim the first home owners grant, does that mean the children have any knowledge of it? Gnangarra 15:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I said that there is "clear evidence INDICATING (emphasis added) that the Howards' dummying was a criminal offence (and certainly unethical) and of significant concern to the Government, and it clearly does conflict with John Howard's version of his family's values from which he appears to try to benefit.". I did not say that it was proven, as in a court of law. There is a difference. The then Auditor-General wrote that he had "no doubt whatever that dummying exists" in their case, though he found "the offence is not so open and the pretence is better maintained" than in other schemes he had examined." This is good evidence that the Auditor-General thought that a criminal offence had been committed. I suggest quoting the Auditor-General's remarks, for which we have a solid reference. Personally attacking me the way you have is inappropriate. Do you think Wayne Errington and Peter van Onselen are also POV pushing by putting the plantations in their recent Howard biography or is that somehow different? AussieBoy 03:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that "offence" in this case refers to the sin of dummying, rather than a specific criminal offence. Not meaning to offend you, of course. You are welcome to your own opinions, and if you think that John Howard is concealing horns and a forked tail beneath his bushy eyebrows, that's fine by me. Just don't try to put it in our encyclopaedia, OK? --Pete 04:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The idea that the Auditor-General was interested in people's "sins" rather than offences under the law is very amusing!! I really can't believe that you are advancing a serious argument here, especially with the weird straw man about people thinking Howard is the Devil. Whatever are you talking about? AussieBoy 07:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on Howard family interests

So far as I can see, we have not reached concensus on including any reference to the copra planations. John Howard had no involvement in the plantation scheme, and no knowledge of it until well after the death of all those involved, according to our best sources. While it is reasonable to use some sort of wishy-washy term such as "took interest in" to describe the level of involvement of his father and grandfather, that's too weak to sustain us giving the affair a mention. Lyall Howard ran petrol stations in which John Howard worked. He talked about his experiences as a digger in the First World War, and John Howard has referred to this many times. But on the copra plantations he does not speak and unless we find otherwise, we must assume that he had no knowledge or involvement, because we certainly do not have any sources saying otherwise. There is just not enough relevance for inclusion.

The other argument is that John Howard has said that he was brought up in a household that "sort of" valued honesty and hard work, and that the involvement of his father and grandfather in the copra scheme contradicts his public statement. This fails on three grounds. First, we don't have any sources that say that he knew about the scheme at all, so he may be merely speaking the truth as he knew it. Secondly, the scheme was not illegal. No charges were laid and an investigation went nowhere. Wikipedia is not a court for us to determine on the basis of newspaper reports whether someone long dead was innocent or guilty of some unspecified crime. And thirdly, that "sort of" lets John Howard off the hook. To my mind, the scheme was legitimate in the same manner as exploiting a tax loophole, but there was enough "sort of" about it that it wasn't entirely kosher. If he knew about it in every detail, then that qualifying "sort of" makes his comments entirely accurate. There is no conflict, regardless of how some of us here might like to believe that John Howard is the spawn of the devil rather than a suburban servo owner.

As I have pointed out previously, the Lyall Howard article contains full details and it is only a link away. --Pete 02:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Compromise?

I just started a new heading to make it easier to find the edit button. Hey, AussieBoy and Shot Info: despite the lively debate (above) you both may be on the same side. As I perceive it, AussieBoy, you'd prefer an extended piece on the plantations that says the Howards acted illegally. Shot Info, as I perceive it, you are willing to include a mention of the plantations as long as it's brief and worded in an acceptable way. Maybe you could both agree on something here. AussieBoy, I know you passionately believe the Howards acted in a criminal way with the plantations, but if you agree to leave that out of the article then maybe we'll have more people who can agree on something. Is that OK with you? Lester2 02:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I'm glad somebody read the RfC comment rather than engage in ever decreasing spirals (lively...) :-). IMO, consensus has been formed with the comprimise position (per WP:PRACTICAL). I note Pete's comments and generally I agree with them but I agree with Lester and Bren which is why I favour the compromise. Shot info 02:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That's fine with me. I was only expressing my preferred position and am willing to compromise, as long as there is some mention of the plantations. AussieBoy 03:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That's great to hear. I hope we can "put down our guns", so to speak, and work something out. Shot Info, I'm curious to know what's your current preference for wording. They "bought", "owned", "nominally owned", "had interests in", "acquired" plantations, etc, etc Lester2 05:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't have any preference. What does the source(s) say. That's what we as Wikipedians follow. Anything else is (unfortunately) OR. Shot info 05:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. The research seems to all come from the David Marr article (the rest seem to quote from that). I just read through it again. QUOTES FROM DAVID MARR ARTICLE:
*Yet at this nadir, Lyall Howard tendered to buy four plantations on Kar Kar, a high volcanic island with perfect soil off the coast of Madang. He was awarded two: Kavilo for £9800 and Marangis for £30,600 — in today's currency a total of roughly $4 million.
*Both (companies) were using dummies: ex-diggers who bought in their own names but signed management of the businesses over to their backers.
*a legless ex-digger found himself the owner of the mighty Bopiri plantation but lived out his days pulling the rope in the Burns Philp lift in Bridge Street, Sydney.
*Auditor-General report: "it appears to me to be very difficult for the Custodian to satisfy himself that their intention is to acquire the property in order to hold and use it for their own exclusive benefit."
*In late 1930, the Howards signed new mortgages over Kavilo
*In 1949, the Howards had sold the last of their holdings to Carpenters. --Lester2 07:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So tendered to buy or was awarded. Acquired works for me as well but that's just my opinion. Shot info 07:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shot info, that a minimal description of the plantation ownership be included consonant with how it is described in the source. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 09:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I dont agree with its inclusion because the only relevance offered is clear evidence INDICATING (emphasis added) that the Howards' dummying was a criminal offence (and certainly unethical) and of significant concern to the Government, and it clearly does conflict with John Howard's version of his family's values from which he appears to try to benefit. Additionally the Lyall Howard article covers the plantations where it is relevant. Additionally this talk page needs to be reviewed by an uninvolved admin and oversighted because some statements that have been made during this discussion have suggest that allegations are actual fact, something Marr didnt do in his original story. Gnangarra 14:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with the inclusion either and I support everything Gnangarra says above. I asked ages ago why this information needs to go in this bio when we link to the Lyall article from here and I still don't feel that I've received a satisfactory response. I think the only real outcome of including it in this article is to tar John Howard with the business dealings of his father. Also, to Lester, talking about "compromise", please remember that Gnangarra agreed to withdraw the AFD of the Lyall Howard article, despite feeling it still didn't meet notability and despite the deletion support of a number of well regarded editors. Gnangarra has compromised more than anyone else at this table, so please try to keep that in mind when you start talking about compromise. Also, I'm strongly against using the Marr article given it is arguably an attack piece and can easily be replaced with other articles. Sarah 14:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply from User:Lester2: Hello Sarah. You said the only purpose for mentioning plantations is "is to tar John Howard with the business dealings of his father". Should the impact on the subject's reputation be a factor regarding its inclusion or omission in Wikipedia? Shouldn't we be more concerned about issues of factual truth and notability, rather than the subject's reputation? Personally, I don't believe a brief mention of plantations, worded in a sensitive way, would have any impact on John Howard's reputation, one way or the other. But you say it will. If you believe the information "tars" the reputation of John Howard, then you have provided a reason for its relevance and connection to John Howard. You also said the David Marr article is an "attack piece". Is an attack piece an article that is factually wrong, or are you referring to the tone of the language used? If it is the tone of the language, then we can use a different tone. As for factual accuracy, the newspaper is subject to libel laws, the article was printed over a year ago and there have been no law suits, no complaints, and no rebuttals from the Prime Minister. The article was a front page headline of the printed newspaper, the text occupied an entire page of the broadsheet publication, and 6 full pages of the newspaper's online edition. If it is an "attack piece", as you say, then it is a very major and very prominent one! Who are we to say it is wrong? Is the recently published biography on John Howard, which uses the same facts about plantations, also an attack piece?--Lester2 22:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Sarah, it would very much advance the discussion if you could substantively respond to Lesters cogent points above... --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 05:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Brendan, it would be really nice if you would cease trying to stir things up. You really are not a help to this process. Sarah 08:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Lester, I'm not worried about JH's reputation as such with regard to the copra material; if I was I wouldn't have spent so much time researching and helping write the Lyall Howard article and arguing to keep it. I am, however, worried that including the information violates BLP because it isn't about John Howard, but rather, his father. If we hadn't saved the Lyall article from deletion, I would have agreed a small mention in this article was appropriate, but since this article links to the Lyall article where it is discussed at length, I don't see the need to include it here, too, where it can never be given enough room to explain appropriately and may easily incorrectly lead people to believe that there was some wrongdoing on Lyall's part and that JH was involved in some way. Additionally, including it here encourages people to add slanting comments, such as claiming that the Howard's family's values of hard work etc are "questioned" and such. An "attack article" is an article which exists to attack or slur the subject(s). The basic facts may well be true, but they are deliberately tied together in ways that attack the subject(s). Just because it was published in a prominent newspaper does not mean it is not an attack article. Attack articles are frequently published in the mainstream media; it doesn't mean that we have to follow suit. Sarah 08:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, to answer your question about the book, I haven't read it so I have no idea if it is an attack piece or not. I also am not personally convinced the Marr article is an attack piece, but I know that many people do consider it one, which is why I have been been trying to get you to use other sources in this and the Lyall article when other sources can be used. Sarah 08:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-neutral Howard Upbringing Quote

Use of a single quote, from Howard himself, to exclusively portray the nature of Howard's upbringing, creates palpable article bias (thus is both unencyclopedic and anti-encyclopedic). Perhaps we should ask John Howard for a few other choice quotes that he might like to include? He might be more adventurous/inventive, if he knew that he has protection (thanks to certain editors) from critical research/references that might question the substance of his claims.
And of course, we must hold the reader's hand. Protect them from the mere possibility that something somewhere might be construed as portraying the PM negatively. That wouldn't do.
Sarah, the process is not helped when substantive discussion points are ignored. This symptom has been rife on the part of other active reverters of the plantation mention. Thank you for engaging. On your talkpage, you described my latest revision as "dodgy" because I appended "although this was questioned in the context of his father's post-war acquisition of a number of New Guinea copra plantations.". Can you elaborate what you consider to be "dodgy" about that statement and why you are happy to rely exclusively on Howard's recollection alone? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 09:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That's absurd. I have never ignored substantive discussion points. If I have missed responding to something it's because there is so much here. I have never said that I am happy to rely exclusively on John Howard's quote. If you think that quote slants the article, then start a new section so we can discuss it. I have never commented on that quote; don't draw conclusions about other issues based on my being opposed to including the copra in the bio. If you can't work out what's wrong with writing that Howard's family's values have been "questioned" then you have no business editing any bios on Wikipedia and should not make another edit to any article until you have fully familiarised yourself with policies like BLP and NPOV. As I told you on my talk page, even Lester isn't suggesting we infer any negative connotations on Lyall or the Howard family due to the copra business. Sarah 09:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Crikey, Sarah. I never said you ignored substantive discussion points. I attributed that to other active reverters and that's exactly what I meant. The talkpage discussion here is prima facie of that. I drew it to your attention so you would understand why there is ongoing sensitivity to this issue and that, as an admin user, you would endeavour to be more pragmatic and constructive than some others.
A separate discussion section, for the current inherent bias of the Howard quote, is unnecessary. That quote has been in the article for a long time and no-one seems to be disputing its inclusion/relevance. There is dispute, however, about its neutrality/non-bias in the light of excluding other views, including a brief mention of the fact that some biographers (van Onselen, Marr) questioned the accuracy of Howard's recollection in light of the Howard's family's post-war acquisition of New Guineau copra plantations. This is fact, relevant to Howard, in the context of the quote itself. It should be dealt with in that context. This is not drawing inference or making implication -- thanks Skyring/Pete :) -- it is a statement of relevant fact. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 02:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, Brendan. I misread your comment and thought you were complaining that I was dodging substantive points which were being put to me. I am happy to discuss the quote if people feel that it is not-neutral. Just because it has been there for ages doesn't mean that it should be there or that we have to keep it there. However, this needs to be discussed in a separate section so that others who may not care either way about the plantations and may be ignoring this section will see the discussion regarding the quote if they wish to participate. Burying it in the middle of a fairly long discussion about the copra business isn't the best way to approach it. Personally, I wouldn't object to removing the quote. I don't think it is all that useful to the bio and it probably does have POV affect. But I would like to hear other people's opinions before removing it. If we're going to discuss it, we need do it in a new section. Sarah 16:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Biased treatment of Early Lives of Howard v Rudd

There is a sentence in Kevin Rudd's Early life section saying Rudd's recollections of his family's eviction from the farm after the death of his father are disputed, on the basis of a single Herald article, using the appended wording "although his account of the circumstances surrounding the eviction has been disputed". This presents a definite case of non-neutrality and inconsistency. On the one hand, in the article for the federal Leader of the Opposition it is OK to present criticisms of Rudd's early life recollections, but in the article for the current Prime Minister, consensus for the merest of similar criticism continues to be withheld. Yet, were the arguments of the anti-copra editors consistently applied, this would see the removal of the Rudd Early Life criticisms too.

Moreover, unlike Labor's seeming non-exploitation of the plantation info when it came out, the Coalition actually maligned Rudd's character at the time on the basis of his allegedly mistaken recollection. They tried to make it an issue of character. Starting to smell the bias yet?

This needs to be resolved in a consistent neutral fashion with foremost concern for the best interests of the encyclopedia. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 15:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Kevin Rudd's early life discussed extensively in another article like the copra and John Howard's father in Lyall Howard? If not, the comparison is not relevant. Also, please see: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Sarah 15:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, not policy or guideline. I doubt it was ever intended to apply in a situation where clear bias is evident in the treatment of the two most public opposing political figures in Australia.

On your other point, the relegation of the copra plantation to the Lyall article does not obviate the two-fold bias problem: firstly, that the appearance of one rule for Rudd and another for Howard remains; and secondly, that the Lyall Howard article makes no mention of the plantation info in it's contemporaneous context (ie. as an alternative viewpoint and counterbalance, by at least three biographers -- Marr, Wayne Errington & Van Onselen -- of Howard's upbringing recollection). --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 15:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I never said it was a policy or a guideline or anything else. In fact, I made no comment on it at all except to direct you to it. And for the record, it is relevant in terms of comparing content in one article to content in another. That something is in (or exists as) one article, does not justify something being in another. All things are not equal. Goodnight, Sarah 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeating your POV that the guideline is relevant does nothing to address the reality that:

  • The guideline doesn't have weight in the context of the significant neutrality conflict (ie. the unequal treatment of Howard v Rudd)
  • Guidelines are not policy.

--Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 16:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No current consensus

Ok, it's becoming more clear that there is no consensus on the way ahead (mainly due to the round and round arguments still going on and the opinion of experienced editors) and per WP:BLP the information should be left out. Now that doesn't mean it's not valid. But what it means is that at this moment in time, a consensus of editors are not convinced that the information out there is relevant for including in here. This doesn't mean it's permanently excluded from the article. Far from it. All we need to do is be patient and what for a more acceptable publication on the particular topic to be available. What I suggest to all editors, but particularly Lester and Bren is that it inclusion is dropped for the moment and lets wait to see what the future holds. All the current discussion is doing is going round in circles with the same arguments being articulated. Remember, Wikipedia will be here tomorrow so rather than expending all this energy on one little point, lets move on and wait. BTW guys, all the discussion over at AN/I isn't helpful, it will only encourage admins to dismiss real problems out of hand as they believe that we cry wolf. Shot info 23:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Shot Info. I don't think we should leave out known facts and return to it next year when everyone has cooled down. I think we should deal with it now. If consensus can't be found, well, that's why we have an RfC to give an unbiased opinion on the facts as they have been presented so far. While the issue of criminality involving plantations is debatable, nobody can deny the basic fact that the Howard family was involved in plantations. Shot Info, Sarah, Gnangarra, while you may debate whether the information should be included, I think you all agree about the basic fact that the Howard family were involved in plantations. Should it be included? The WP:BLP issue, that gets presented time and time again, does not apply. There is nothing in WP:BLP to say that Wikipedia should strive to protect the reputations of people who are the subject of Wiki articles. It just says that controversial information about living people should be properly sourced. The copra plantation issue has been covered by newspapers, magazines, and now books. People who read the best selling book, then read the Wiki article, are going to wonder why it's not included. In fact, with Wikipedia receiving newspaper headlines like this one, the whole Australian population starts to wonder if Wikipedia is presenting a cleansed image of John Howard. That headline should be enough to warn what happens if we delete factual information because we are worried it might "tar" the Prime Minister's reputation. The notability of the plantation info has been proven beyond doubt. We have more references for this than any other single fact in the article. It should be included immediately to preserve Wikipedia's reputation of independence.--Lester2 00:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the inclusion (per above) but we don't have a consensus, which is why the AN/I is ignoring you at the moment. Using your reasoning (ie/ leaving it out is a "cleansed image") including the information is presenting an "uncleansed image", which can lead to other editors questioning the value of including the very information. I doubt that the 0.0002% of info in Howard's bio will cause the concern you articulate (much less a "best seller" in Australia...what's that...100,000 copies??). Lets face it, Wikipedia doesn't really care much about Australian's opinion of it much less it's "reputation of independence". BTW, I've been there and done that with other BLPs so I can see the value of sitting back and waiting. O, and BLP says in it's intro: [do no harm]. Shot info 00:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Lester is correct in saying BLP doesnt say we should "protect the reputation" of people, what it says is We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion. In this case the sourcing was all from Marr related article, making it poorly sourced contentious material(addressable by getting copies of document from NAA). Now some editors have taken to removing the content on site as per the statement removed immediately and without discussion that is actually a reasonable action. This discussion is because some editors think that the information should be there but not for its relevance to JH but because its presents a different view of JH's childhood to what he does. BLP say about this Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. The BLP also says The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. Its been repeatably asked for relevance as to why the plantation information should be included and the only reasons offered have not met the requirements of BLP. My position on the wording is meet the requirements BLP and I'll edit it in no problems at all. Gnangarra 13:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is in the wording. If we describe the senior Howards as people who nominally owned foreign plantations or took an interest in same, then the reader may legitimately ask, WTF does this have to do with John Howard. If we take the line that the dummying contradicts JH's statement's about sort of being raised in a household of honesty and hard graft, well, uh, it doesn't. The scheme was legal, and we don't have any evidence that JH knew about it anyway. Now have I said this a million times already, or is anybody going to come up with something new, or are we going to recognise that the link to the Lyall Howard article is as good as it gets for the copra philiacs? --Pete 22:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that opponents of the "Plantation Ownership versus Upbringing" criticism do not accept that it is relevant even though it:
  • Is a critical analysis of John Howard's public claim about the nature of his upbringing.
  • Removes first person bias arising from the current inclusion of Howard's quote about his upbringing to the exclusion of all other views.
  • Has multiple reputable sources, notably professional biographers, none of whom have been legally challenged over the plantation info, and themselves reference the NAA historical record (Gnangarra, not just the Marr article, the Howard biography too; Sarah, the latter is not an "attack article"; and to anyone who didn't know, yes, Marr is a biographer)
It should be included in the article, accurately described consonant with the sources, in proportion to other existing inclusions of equivalent significance. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 02:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of references

Some editors have recently been trawling through the John Howard article, deleting any reference that mentions "copra plantations". There have been instances where the article text is not disputed, but people have deleted the reference because the reference also mentions "copra plantations". To me, this is an act of vandalism.

An example is the text about when Lyall Howard died, "leaving his mother to take care of John".

I didn't write that text. I just found the reference for it. After our previous RfC, and the presiding admin User:Hornplease called for people to find references, I started searching for references to cover unreferenced text. Someone recently deleted the reference for that line of text, but left the article text unchanged.

To me, the act of deleting references like that is destructive to the fundamental process that builds Wikipedia. It reaches a new low-point, when the hysteria over the Copra issue extends to deleting references from other non-controversial parts of the article, just because the reference newspaper story also mentions the dreaded "copra".

After my protests about the (above) reference being deleted, another editor later added an alternate reference that didn't at all mention the fact that after Lyall's death Mona & John Howard were left alone in the house. If someone wishes to replace an existing reference, they should at least make sure the replacement reference fully covers the subject matter. It's almost like "any reference will do, as long as it doesn't mention copra".

What are we going to do about the new John Winston Howard biographical book? It mentions the dreaded copra. Are we going to then disallow this book as a Wikipedia reference? I ask people to stop deleting references. It's bizarre, and it's unravelling the fabric of Wikipedia. --Lester2 00:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, Hornplease isn't an admin [[2]] but I note that Gnangarra and Sarah both are. Shot info 01:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Page 9 of the Barnett/Goward biography, which we have long listed as a reference, mentions Howard and his mum living alone together in the family house after the death of Lyall Howard. We don't need an online source for every little uncontroversial fact, otherwise we'd have a list of references as long as the article text, if not more so. Does the new biography showe any link between John Howard and the copra thing? Or is it just in connection to Lyall Howard? --Pete 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Lester, we weren't "trawling" through anything, nor were we trying to remove "any reference that mentions copra plantations". People were removing one source: the Marr article. There are other sources which could be used that mention the copra plantations. I don't think there is anything inherently bad about using a source which mentions the copra. Also, I wasn't trying to source the statement "leaving his mother to take care of John," because I didn't think that was controversial or likely to ever be questioned. I was only trying to provide a source for the statement that JH is known as "Jack" to his family and friends. The verifiability policy says we only have to cite published sources for quotations and "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". I did not consider the statement that Mona cared for her teenage son controversial and so I was not trying to source it. Frankly, I think it is bizarre that anyone would find that statement controversial. Your complaint that I slapped up any old reference is false. I was tired of watching the edit warring and I was acting in good faith, trying to put a stop to it. You could have helped instead of complaining here that I was "unravelling the fabric of Wikipedia" by offering an alternative source. Furthermore, you've complained repeatedly that the source I provided does not say, "Mona & John Howard were left alone in the house" or words to that effect. Our article does not say anything along the lines of "Mona & John Howard were left alone in the house", so I don't know why you keep complaining that we need to find a reference which says this. Also, please stop accusing obviously good faith editors and admins of vandalism. This repeated accusation is beginning to look like personal attacks. If your persist with unfounded vandalism accusations, I will start giving you an NPA warnings. Please read the vandalism policy. By definition, anyone acting in good faith is not a vandal. Sarah 17:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Plantation debate continues

(Added heading to separate it from reference issue above)Lester2 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete, you keep asserting that direct involvement by JH has to be proven in order to justify brief inclusion of the plantation fact. This is untrue. The reported discordance between public claims by JH about his upbringing and the researched facts about his father's business activities is the reason a brief mention of the plantations is worthy. Excluding this censors the fact that these questions were ever raised and creates article bias by relying solely on a uncritical quote, from the subject of the article himself, about his early life. Clearly POV and unencyclopedic. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 06:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry? I haven't asserted anything of the sort, let alone repeatedly. I've addressed your point previously - see the "Concensus on grandparent interests" heading above - and I must question your role in this discussion if you can't pay attention to what has already been said. Go do something productive, please. --Pete 08:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? How about your question, only a few entries above, "Does the new biography showe any link between John Howard and the copra thing?"? My apologies, that is not an assertion, it is an implication. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 04:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
'Skyring(Pete), I haven't got my copy of the new John Winston Howard biography yet. How many pages does it devote to plantations? Do you know what page number it begins with? (so I can quicky flick through to the relevant bit)?--Lester2 03:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
p 7-8. Shot info 05:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks shot info. I'll go get a copy of the new biography and read its version of the plantation saga.Lester2 05:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is some further info previously discussed [3]. Shot info 05:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Shot Info. I read your reasoning that the plantations only takes up a page or so of the biography. So, out out of curiosity, I performed a word count on our John Howard article. It contains roughly 6050 words, not including references (which would add much more to the count). This brief version of the plantation saga occupied 8 words of our 6000+ word article. So our "brief" version occupied a much lower percent of our article than it does in the printed Howard biography.Lester2 06:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me for asking a silly question but what on earth does the copra business have to do with John Howard, the man? This should be in the Lyall Howard article, especially since it appears John Howard had very little if anything to do with that side of the family business. If the purpose is purely, as I've seen written in some places by some contributors here, to prove some statement wrong that John Howard made at some point in his life (which also seems to have little encyclopaedic import), please read Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I'd be the first to admit I don't like John Howard and would happily see him go in October or November, but the encyclopaedia-building bit of me says this is a distraction from article development, not an aid to it. Orderinchaos 16:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, OIC. I haven't seen any evidence put forward which indicates that JH was involved or even that he knew anything about his father's investments in the copra plantations. In fact, it would seem that his father invested in these plantations some ten years before JH was even born. And according to the David Marr article, Lyall had sold the last of his copra holdings to Carpenters in 1949, when JH would have been about ten-years-old. I think it is fairly safe to say that JH's involvement in his father's copra investments would have been minimal to (most likely) non-existent. Sarah 16:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's nn. Looks like the kind of thing where ppl blame the Dalai Lama for something they don't agree with which happened when he was 4 yo. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Plantation newspaper articles

Due to the fact that the article references keep getting deleted, I will add links here for some of the newspaper stories which refer to the plantations, to allow people to check the sources:

Note: Fiji's Island Business magazine doesn't include new info (it quotes the original David Marr piece), but I include it to show the reaction in the pacific island nations, including a front page devoted to the issue. Lester2 00:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I also see that User:Hornplease (above) has cited the existence of an article in the PNG Post-Courier newspaper in New Guinea, though I haven't yet been able to locate an online version of this article to quote for references. The Post-Courier website is here, but they don't seem to retain archives online dating back to 2006. Update: Article found Lester2 07:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It has also been pointed out by User:AussieBoy (above) that the recently published best-selling biography, John Winston Howard has included the plantation affair. --Lester2 02:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I've reviewed the section in the book. There's nothing new, it's entirely concerned with Lyall Howard, and any link with John Howard is, in the author's word, "unclear". --Pete 04:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I gather you dropped out of the thread above then, because you will see this an aid to explaining my reasoning for brief inclusion. But given the lack of consensus and the inclusion over at Lyall Howard, I now don't really mind if it isn't in here. Some third party sources saying why it should be included (not just sources stating the issue) would be beneficial to helping salve editors and helping consensus on it's merry way (also articulated several times above). Shot info 07:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I read the plantation section of the John Winston Howard book ISBN : 0-522-85334-X. Plantations takes up just over a page (starts on 2nd paragraph page 7), and wording is fairly similar to the newspaper articles, and uses the word "dummying", just like the papers, and it mentions the contradiction between "plantations" and Howard's stated background "myths". Book is 472 pages total. Pages 432-445 are references. It has 16 pages of images. So that probably leaves about 400 pages of content. --Lester2 06:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

David Marr feedback

When asked via email about his Howard plantation research and it's relevance to John Howard, biographer David Marr replied (on Sunday 16 Sep 2007 16:08:37 +1000), in full:

I'm a biographer. If someone wants to argue Lyall's plantation adventures had no impact on his son's life, then it is up to them to prove this difficult argument. The correct biographical starting point has to be that it's an important part of the mix in the story of his upbringing. After all, the Howards were the subject of public controversy in the 1920s and 1930s because of Lyall's dummying. They got away with it, but it was a big issue. Subsequently, Howard has misrepresented the ethic of his household - which was the principal reason I gave when revealing all of this last year. This is how I began my piece:

' THE corner of Ewart Street and Wardell Road in Sydney's Dulwich Hill is sacred ground for John Howard and the modern Liberal Party. For nearly 30 years, the Prime Minister's father ran a service station on this spot, setting an example his son thinks Australia should follow. "I was brought up to believe that about the best thing you could ever do in your life," he said soon after taking office in 1996, "was to start up a business with nothing, work your insides out, hope you earned a bit of money, and pass on a bit of it to your kids." His mother's church and his father's service station have come to stand as markers of respectability, honesty and the Howard family's deep roots in the suburban heart of the nation. To be the son of a service station allows John Howard to claim as a qualification for high office that he was and remains an ordinary Australian. But Howard's father had another life. ...'

That this is embarrassing is abundantly clear. But I can't see anyone convincing me that it's also irrelevant.

Given that some have expressed a view that the article by Marr, a professional biographer, is an "attack piece", and that making assertions of that nature could be construed as defaming his character and ethics, it seems only fair that his view be heard. Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 14:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

David Marr's opinion about his work isn't relevant. If he wants to comment on our article, he can come and do so himself. I don't think anyone has argued that Lyall's life hasn't impacted on JH. After all, that was the basic premise for keeping the Lyall Howard article: he really isn't notable in his ownright, his notability comes from his relationship with JH. Secondly, do you have consent to reproduce his email? Do you have consent to publish it under the GFDL? Does he know and understand that his email may be republished and used for any purpose, even commercially? If not, I suggest you remove it ASAP. Posting emails on Wikipedia is frowned upon. Regardless, of that, posting emails from the journalist seems rather like clutching at straws to me. I mean, he has a clear COI and a vested interest in us, a top 10 website, linking to his articles. He isn't a neutral party in discussion about the validity and credibility of his articles. Sarah 14:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for your suggestions and viewpoint, Sarah. I did indeed obtain Marr's consent. There is no need for its removal. I don't know what "straw clutching" has to do with a substantial robust discussion about content relevance. That sounds like aggressively POV phraseology to me. Meanwhile, I again draw to the attention of editors that Kevin Rudd's Early Life (and the controversy about that) is dealt with in a polar opposite to the controversy about Howard's Early life, creating palpable political bias. As a minimum starting point, either the respective controversies should both be mentioned (in their respective article) or both removed. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 15:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you asserting, Sarah, that David Marr's article lacks credibility? As it goes to the reliability of the article and Marr's conduct in interpreting primary sources, please clarify your statements on this. What exactly are you saying about the article and its author? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've said what I have to say and I don't need you twisting my words and trying to read between the lines and infer that I'm saying anything about the David Marr the person. My comment above was quite clear. It is a simple fact that David Marr has a COI in relation to his own material. His opinion and understandable desire for us to link to his article in the bio on the Australian Prime Minister in a top ten website is an obvious COI. Furthermore, it is obvious that he is responding to what you have put to him and by responding in terms of the relevance of Lyall Howard and the Copra, I can only assume what exactly you have told him. My own position is Lyall's life, including the copra business, is relevant to JH's life, hence my arguing to save the Lyall article and spending a day researching and helping re-write it. However, the copra doesn't warrant mention in the bio of JH when we already link to the Lyall article. Now, I'm going to follow other people's leads and stop paying attention to you because all we do is rehash the same tired arguments again and again, endlessly going in circles until, I suspect, you hope, you wear your opponents out and they drop off one-by-one. Enough! You have a one track mind and an apparent singular purpose here. We've gone over this for weeks, we're at an impasse, it's time to look at other things now because this has been going around in circles for too long. Please go and work on another issue or another article for at least a few weeks: there is no consensus for your position and posting emails from the article's author is not going to change that. Also, there's nothing wrong with POV in talk page discussions. You write that like NPOV applies to people's talk page comments; it's an article standard policy. It doesn't apply to non-mainspace content. You really need to stop trying to enforce article policies on talk pages, it detracts from your credibility. As for Kevin Rudd, that otherstuffexists isn't a reason for doing or not doing anything on Wikipedia and the comparison is not relevant anyway because there is an extensive article on Lyall Howard and it includes all the copra information. As I said, you're clutching at straws now. This is my final reply to you on this topic until at least a few weeks have passed. Sarah 15:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, it's a bit rich you lecturing me about trying to "enforce" article policy on talkpages when, in the subsection #Biased treatment of Early Lives of Howard v Rudd, you hose me down with the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS guideline. Inconsistency and personal admonitions in a content debate does nobody's credibility any good. And yet, your vocal resistance to the continued exploration of this issue is extraordinary, in light of your determined downplaying of the clearly #Biased treatment of Early Lives of Howard v Rudd.

You will make whatever assumptions you wish. I only ask that those you make public are civil and in good faith. For my part, I asked Marr's point-of-view (see, I have no problem with POV on talkpages, only when it gets massaged into content) about the plantation info's relevance to and/or impact upon JH, and that was his response. I directed him to this talkpage in reference to the ongoing debate. Despite your wink-wink-nudge-nudging, it is mere speculation that David Marr would be desire linkage from Wikipedia or that any material conflict of interest exists on his part in that respect. After all, I approached him. Only at the conclusion of our conversation did I request and obtain permission to reproduce his comments here. So saying, accusing Marr of the flimsiest of COIs seems rather like clutching at straws to me.

There was one thing that did interest Mr Marr though. As a journalist, he keen to know who was so passionate about keeping that material out of John Howard's wikipedia bio and why. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 17:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is an ARTICLE content policy, not a talk page policy; otherstuffexists is intended to be used for discussions regarding mainspace content and is therefore useful in discussions like article content RFCs and deletion discussions. As usual, you're comparing apples and oranges and coming up with a totally irrelevant and misleading answer. COI is universally accepted on Wikipedia, so you may as well learn to live with it. I actually agree with David Marr on the point that Lyall's life, including the copra, is relevant to JH, THAT'S WHY I HELPED WORK ON AND SAVE THE LYALL HOWARD ARTICLE WHICH THIS ARTICLE IS DIRECTLY LINKED TO. But that doesn't justify including it in the article on JH's life AS WELL AS the Lyall article. You're a one track record. Go away and do something productive for a while. Sarah 01:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Astounding. You just acknowledged that the content is relevant to JH but then argued its exclusion anyway, on the minor grounds that it is mentioned in further detail in another article (despite the reality that many articles share related content and that is appropriate). The problem with that position is that it continues to disregard the fact that the plantation is relevant to JH in a way that is not mentioned in the Lyall Howard article, namely the contemporaneous criticism, by biographers Marr, Errington and Van Onselen, of its asymmetry with JH's recollection of his upbringing. Why, instead of addressing this point, do you continue to cast me and my actions in a negative way? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 04:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Sigh* I have said all along that I find the information about Lyall Howard interesting and relevant in terms of the overall story of JH. Go back and read my comments on the AfD discussion. Why else do you think I spent so much time researching and helping rewrite the article to save it from deletion??? I really wish you stop trying to twist and/or sensationalise every single thing I say. Yes, of course, the whole Lyall Howard story is relevant to John Howard, just like any parent's story is relevant to their child. And yes, I personally think it is interesting, BUT neither is interesting me or having parental relevance to JH means that it meets our policies and guidelines for inclusion in JH's blp. As I have said repeatedly, when we have an article on this subject where it is discussed at length which is linked to from here, I do not see any valid reason for it also to be included in this bio where it can't be given appropriate space to explain and will only be used by people like you who want to use it for making partisan edits critical of JH. And don't give me this crap that us having an article devoted to Lyall is a "minor" detail. Having that article is a major accomplishment because Lyall Howard is not independently notable and thus his article would most likely have been deleted had Gnangarra not been willing to compromise with us and withdrawn his nomination. It is clear that you are only interested in using the investments to continue your claim that JH's comments about his family's values are "questioned" by his father's decision to make a legal investment before JH was even born. This is completely unacceptable. Honestly, it is making it very hard to assume good faith of you and to believe you are here for anything but political purposes. If you were here for any other reason, you'd be answering highly relevant policy grounded comments instead of trying to sensationalise irrelevancies and whitewash important considerations. You can respond as you wish but I won't be responding to you again in this copra discussion until at least a reasonable period of time has passed. There is no consensus for what you want to do and continuing to sensationalise things is only making it more and more unlikely that a compromise will ever be reached. Sarah 11:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Brendon just above on the 17th you said "There was one thing that did interest Mr Marr though. As a journalist, he keen to know who was so passionate about keeping that material out of John Howard's wikipedia bio and why." (your emphasis). This is unacceptable for an editor of Wikipedia to attempt to influence discussions by making veiled threats that those opposing your view will be subject to media scrutiny. I suggest you consider what your purpose in editing is, because it appears to me that you are more interested in political point scoring than building an encyclopedia. Gnangarra 08:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Sarah, my contribution history does not support the implication that I am "here for [nothing more than] political purposes". Please also consider that saying I am "trying to twist and/or sensationalise every single thing" you say but then claiming that the plantation info would "only be used by people like you who want to use it for making partisan edits critical of JH", and referring to my commentary as "irrelevancies" and "whitewash", is inconsistent, unfair and untrue. Conversely, exclusion of information can be used by pro-Howard editors for partisan edits depicting Howard in an favourably non-neutral way (eg. until consensus was recently achieved for its removal, the isolated Howard quote about his upbringing).

    I encourage you and Gnangarra to please refer to the discussion #Good Faith discussions please below, and suggest that we all strive to comment on content, not each other (or at least take it to user talkpages as appropriate). --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 16:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions re RfC

I request help understanding the RfC process (above). I assume that because it's a request for comment, that someone will make a comment. Has that person commented yet? There are many people commenting, so it's hard to know which one was assigned to comment. Is there any time limit on an RfC process, or can it go forever? Thanks,--Lester2 10:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is assigned to comment. I don't know what exactly you think an RFC is, but an RfC is the discussion that we just had up there ^ You asked people to comment, they commented, there is no consensus to include the material and it's time to move on for now to the next issue. Sarah 11:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It's disappointing that no consensus could be found through informal discussion to either include or omit the plantation information.--Lester2 14:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a consensus will be able to be reached one way or the other at a later date. At this stage, I support what Shot info has recommended and that is that we put this aside for now because consensus has not been reached and is not likely to be reached at this point in time due to the fact that everyone feels unable to compromise further. Sarah 16:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I recommended it for mediation. Maybe that'll help people to reach a compromise. --Lester2 20:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't. I'm not interested in mediation at this point and I doubt many others will be either. We've been going in circles for weeks and we need a decent break before discussing it again. Also, there is no point in mediation unless there is room for compromise, in this case both sides feel they cannot compromise further. Sarah 00:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Mediation is never compulsory, so unless all agree to it, I guess the mediation committee will reject the application.--Lester2 03:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Mediation Link:Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard...--Lester2 06:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Update: Mediation committee has formally rejected my proposal for mediation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lester2 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't really understand the point of your mediation request given that all parties must consent and I had already told you [I had told you before you proceeded with the formal process of notifying people] that I was not interested in it at this time. It seems rather peculiar to go forward with it knowing it would rejected, rather than hold it over until a later date. I also found your misleading comments on the village pump a rather peculiar thing to do. If you want to ask people's opinions of a particular dispute, you should give them the actual details, not propose it as a misleading hypothetical. Sarah 11:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sarah. If you look at the time stamps, the RfM was submitted well before you had commented about it on the talk page.--Lester2 12:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Lester: I was going to withdraw the section you objected to on my talk page but you had already responded here as well so it seems quite pointless to withdraw it now. I will reiterate that I accept you started the process before I commented, but still, you went ahead with process and notified people even though you knew it would be rejected. It just seems that it would have been more effective to delay processing it until you had a reasonable feeling that people would accept. I note that I was not the only person who has indicated they think that we are at a no consensus impasse and that it would be best to have a break from discussing the copra business discussion before real damage is done. Please consider. Sarah 13:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting bloody sick of all this foofaraw. I suggest that if we must, we revisit the issue after the election, when it might be presumed there is no burning need to fight battles over trivial points in the fond hope that people will adjust their votes according to Wikipedia. If something new in the copra scheme emerges, the hitherto concealed true facts that John Howard spent his summers in Rabaul fathering cocoacoloured orphans and he became a millionaire through WR Carpenter share options, then by all means let us leap to action and update our encyclopaedia. --Pete 06:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I second Pete's and Shot info's proposals to defer the copra issue until a later date. It is apparent that a mutually agreeable compromise won't be reached in the immediate future and there is no point continuing to go around in circles. Sarah 11:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that some editors feel that the timing of the Australian election (which hasn't been announced as I write this) should affect how we deal with the disputed "copra plantation" issue. Why should we revisit the issue "after the election"? What would an election have to do with it? We have information that is factual, not libelous, but is disputed as to its relevance and notability. If the information is not relevant, why would it ever become relevant after the next election is over? If the information is relevant, why would we want to leave it out until "after the election"? The information stands or doesn't stand on its factual accuracy, relevance and notability. I don't see why the influence of an election should change information in Wikipedia. --Lester2 13:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Put this in perspective - it's the wikidrama factor. Some people have spent 2 weeks fighting one way or another over a single line in the article. What does that line add to the understanding of visiting readers about John Howard, and why is it so important that almost all other editing on the article possibly a few weeks before an election where a lot of people will be both reading and editing has to come to a grinding halt? I think that's the point others are trying to make. Orderinchaos 15:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect outside media coverage of Plantations

The Plantation issue was referenced in this Wikipedia article with multiple significant international sources (See: Talk:John_Howard#Plantation_newspaper_articles above). Wikipedia should be reflecting the coverage the plantation issue receives in the outside world. Any questions about our coverage can be answered by looking at the general coverage of the issue.

News organisations in 3 different countries (Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji) have covered the Howard connection to plantations with front page major feature stories (not mere mentions of the issue). The latest biography on John Howard (June 2007) currently prominently positioned at the front every book store in Australia devotes pages 7-8 to John Howard's connection to PNG plantations. The issue is receiving coverage from sources outside Wikipedia, whether we like it or not. We need to reflect that.

All these items draw the connection to John Howard. The book, like Marr's article, says the plantation issue paints a different picture of J Howard's family circumstances than J.H has given himself. Once again, why should we argue the relevance, when the existing media coverage on the issue already provides that answer?

The issue that Lyall Howard owned New Guinea plantations is beyond dispute. We only need to look to the Papua New Guinea news coverage of the issue (linked above) and they use the word "owned". It quotes the Australian government as regarding Lyall Howard as "the sole and legal owner" of the plantation. The ownership is settled and beyond debate. Our Wiki article should also used the word "owned".

NOTABILITY: WP:N Notability is a guideline for articles, not facts within articles. However, the notability of the plantation issue is proven by the number of significant feature articles devoted to the topic in Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji. In addition, to the people of Papua New Guinea and the Pacific islands, the Howard plantation issue is one of the more notable facts in relation to John Howard. The Fiji cover story on Plantations has a caricature of John Howard (not Lyall Howard) with colonial connotations.

NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW WP:NPOV:

  • "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
    We can use this formula to work out the prominence our Wikipedia article should allocate to plantations in comparison to the 2007 Howard biography. Wiki article length = 6050 words, which means the plantations would receive a minimum 16 words to give it an equal balance to the published 2007 biography.

BIOGRAPHIES OF LIVING PERSONS WP:BLP:

  • "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
    There you have it. We should document what the other sources say. Why doesn't the current John Howard Wikipedia article follow that guideline?

'ARBITRATION POLICY: NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW This document contains information for those who wish to delete cited content:

  • "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view."
  • "Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable."

I include those last 2 quotes because those who have been actively deleting content may have also breached NPOV rules. Best wishes to all :) --Lester2 05:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lester, time to let this one go... Shot info 06:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well the AC doesn't directly rule on content. So unless one guy kept on blackwashing or whitwashing teh article for their own pruposes against consensus, nothing much would happen. But of course, you run the risk of being banned as well for your 3RR violations. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we're into trolling territory now. Lester2, just what are you hoping for by continually flogging a dead horse? Every day we get some new attempt to restate your opinion. Everyone knows exactly what you want, we've discussed it all around and around and around, and it's not going to happen. Every day you jump on your soapbox, and every day you use up the tolerance and goodwill of longstanding editors. Take it from one who has been there, you would do very well to listen to the advice you are getting to give it a rest. --Pete 17:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, Skyring(Pete), you spent weeks debating whether or not the Howard family actually owned the plantation. I found new documents that prove it was the case. Call it "trolling" if you will. --Lester2 23:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith discussions please

Slighting of editors providing new information about disputed content, by some of those who disagree with that content, is unreasonable and ought to cease. Whatever the outcome, whatever the issue, it is sensible that the talkpage reflects the fullest exploration of relevant matters that it can. Could all editors, in good faith, please consider this and resist the temptation to bait each other with snideness or ad hominem. For my part: Sarah, I unreservedly apologise for any unhelpful remarks during our recent dialogues. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 14:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Brendan "There was one thing that did interest Mr Marr though. As a journalist, he keen to know who was so passionate about keeping that material out of John Howard's wikipedia bio and why." (your emphasis), can explain why anyone should presume AGF in light of the fact that you have implied that questioning the inclusion will result in that person being the subject to off-wiki investigations. Gnangarra 14:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your question Gnangarra. I wasn't implying anything. I was stating the empirical fact that Marr asked me exactly that. In light of prior news reports about allegations of Wikipedia edits from government computers, it was hardly a surprising question. Marr is a grown adult. His actions are a matter for him and have no bearing on my editorial character. As this is the Howard talkpage, please direct any further specific non-content-based feedback about my editorial actions to my talkpage, as appropriate. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Howard's picture

Re this edit, I agree the current one is not exactly flattering, I much prefer Image:John Howard May 2006.jpg but others seem to prefer the current one as it's a totally free PD image. As per the previous couple of edits, people are uploading images of the current PM with standard non-free image templates. Should we go back to Image:John Howard May 2006.jpg or keep the totally current free PD one? Timeshift 17:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not use the source that provides [4], [5], [6], [7] (etc.)? Shot info 00:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shot info. Use the same source as the other Australian Prime Ministers if another decent current use-qualified picture can't be found. I think the current picture is not a neutral biographical photograph (has a shifty look about it and is not a well-taken photo) which introduces potential bias into the article. Some relevant links include http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/meetpm.asp and http://www.nla.gov.au/pict/ --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 00:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Further pictures from that source, the National Library of Australia:

  • Howard family 1985 here, here and here
  • JH 1986 here
  • JH and Kim Beazley 1997 here
  • JH with Aussie troops in Dili 1999 here
  • JH here and Janette Howard here at an ABC National Press Club Address 2001
  • JH 'Resolute' 2004 here
  • JH and Janette, Federal Election night 2004, here
  • Howard family 2004 here

What is the status quo in regards to usage of these? I have to say, I'm baffled, as there are so many reams of pages and templates for image/fair use, that I'm lost. I thought {{Parliament of Australia}} tag and rationale was suitable for the earlier JH pic I uploaded, but seems not. I've read the [Wikimedia Foundation resolution on Licensing Policy] and WP:FU but still unsure. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 02:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As a living person with a high public profile WP:FU policy would preclude fair use images of JH. Gnangarra 13:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you elaborate further (on my talkpage if preferred)? I still find it unclear what the deal is with BLP images. Seems that USA-govt-created content is OK but Australian-govt-created and/or AUSPIC content is not (despite similar "fair dealing" provisions here in Australia and the existence of a specific license template for that purpose). --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 13:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've continued this discussion on User_talk:Brendan.lloyd, as this applies to more than just a JH image. Gnangarra 01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I contacted the National Library of Australia, via their website, with the following enquiry: "Can you please clarify the copyright status of NLA images (eg. photographs of Australian political figures) with respect to their inclusion and/or linkage on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org)?" Their response (enquiry 29751):

Thank you for your enquiry. The National Library has attached a number of photos to Wikipedia entries and for the most part the photos are either out of copyright or the National Library is the copyright owner. If you double click on the image it will bring up a larger copy of the image plus information relating to copyright and further use of the image. For example see the image of Robert Menzies and the copyright information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Robert_Menzies_1930s.jpg

Senior Reference Librarian
Date closed: 12 Sep 2007 09:39:43

--Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 03:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, love the reply. Cheers for that! Timeshift 03:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How does this apply to an image of JH, many public domain images have been used from the NL. you'll notice that the reply indicates some images are copyrighted(check each one individually) ({{PD-Australia}} has specific time limits) and as such JH cant be used because it would require them posted here under fair use. Gnangarra 03:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The reply from the NLA seems to have misunderstood the question. It clearly explains how to find copyright information for an image on Wikipedia, not how to find out whether it is appropriate to use their images on Wikipedia. As well as confusing the NLA, the reference to Wikipedia in the question is probably on the whole unhelpful, as Wikipedia policy on image use depends on how the images can be used anywhere. Wikipedia-specific permission is irrelevant. Either the image is in the public domain, it is released under a free license, or it is neither, in which case we need to include a rationale for fair use, which is where the questions of replaceability come in. JPD (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have more faith in others in their judgement of what is fair-use and acceptable on wikipedia. I'm not arguing PD, all the PMs are still fair-use and have rock solid rationales. Timeshift 09:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Timeshift: Here, I have addressed this particular reply from the NLA, in particular the fact that it is confused and doesn't help us at all. I haven't said anything about you are arguing, but tried to explain to Brendan the three possibilities, and why the confused conversation with the NLA has not helped. If you think I am mistaken in this explanation, please explain here. If you wish to discuss the rationales you have used, I am happy to continue the conversation at the WikiProject page or my talk page. JPD (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making things a bit clearer, JPD. I think I see what you mean, in that the question is the wrong one and misdirected. Perhaps a different, specific and hopefully more apt question, to you and other knowledgeable editors, may help further.

Consider that there is an apparent dearth of unconditionally free pictures of Prime Minister Howard. The ones that are available are very poor quality or construable as non-neutral because of their decidedly unflattering/emotive representation of the subject (whereas bios for former Aussie PMs use neutral photos, at least for the main bio pic). Does this have any weight in the context of wiki image-use policies? For example, under what circumstances (if any) would the non-free picture of JH at a 2001 Press Club Address satisfy current policy and be allowed in the Howard BLP as a main bio pic? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 12:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

short answer is no it doesnt alter the fact that if a free use image can be made the fair use images cant be used. What you could do is contact the PM department, or his electorate office direct and request a PD image be made available. Gnangarra 12:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
But you could just as easily argue that someone should ask Bob Hawke or Malcolm Fraser for a PD picture, since they're still alive and are seen in public every now and then. At what point does it become too difficult to obtain a free use picture? Yeti Hunter 12:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Never, unless the person is demonstrably a non-public figure. Definitely, if a PD image is available, then we have no legitimate fair-use criterion to fall back on. Non=neutrality is insufficient. If you think the current photo is shifty, the option is no photo, not a FU one. Hornplease 13:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if the National Library of Australia provide a release form for that purpose? Or if the person dies or ceases to be a public figure (meaning that it is no longer possible to create a free picture of that person in their original notable context (eg. as current Prime Minister)? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 14:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If the NLA provide a form releasing an official picture into PD, then it is permissible, of course. Also if a person dies, then FU can come into play. Hornplease 15:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
To be clearer, the image doesn't need to be released to the public domain - it is ok for it to be released under any free license. The NLA have been adding some of their images to Wikipedia (see Special:Contributions/NLA PIC), with conditions that look vaguely like a free license, but this information suggests it doesn't apply to all their images, or even all the ones that do not mention another copyright holder. They would need to release each image under a free license. As for when we can use an image as Fair Use - the question is when it is no longer possible to create (or find) a free picture with the same effect. Clearly this is not a black and white question, and depends on what the use of the photo is in each particular article. JPD (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, of course, though I confess to preferring a clearly-understood PD license to a novel license that indicates free release. The "same effect" part of the FU criterion of course is open to

interpretation, but I don't think that "looks terrible" is a condition that permits us fair use of another image. (I remember wincing for a long time every time I visited the old Anne McCaffrey page, but replacing that dreadful image with FU was out of the qn. Hornplease 16:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. And even if that sort of picture quality were a valid reason to disregard a free picture, it wouldn't be relevant in this situation, where it is still possible to take pictures of the subject. The same effect clause is intended to make sure we don't use non-free pictures from one event when a free picture with different content would serve the same purpose. JPD (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What was so wrong with the long-standing pic, Image:John Howard May 2006.jpg, that it needed replacing anyway? --cj | talk 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

agree its a neutral image with appropriate copyright. Gnangarra 15:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It's in public domain as well, so that's an appropriate substitute. I can't see how its any more neutral, either, but that merely means I am indifferent between the two PD images. Hornplease 15:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I know it sounds vague and entirely subjective, but neither of the two Howard pics used in the recent past "look" like a lead biographical photo. I now understand that it is the combination of policies (BLP wrt Fair versus Free Use) that prevents images being used that are otherwise appropriate for other similar entities (eg. ex-Prime Ministers). It's frustrating when decent AUSPIC images (like the one here) are available but unable to be used on WP. Even the Labor party manages to get hold of, and use, pictures that arguably look more "biographical" (see the banner header at here for example). How? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures & copyright

Has anyone else noticed that four of the five pictures on the article about the Australian prime minister were taken when he was in America. Surely someone can dig up some more local ones... 124.183.147.134 07:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my IP friend is back. The problem is finding free images. The ones taken by the US govt are free. Sarah 07:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Strictly speaking commons:Category:John Howard has a number of images of JH including a few of mine taken during his visit to Deakin electorate, Victoria. They are of worse quality then I would like to but I guess they still are usable Alex Bakharev 10:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Following on from the previous discussion thread, the Australian Copyright Council says, in part, that

"People and people’s images (images of their face or body) are not protected by copyright. Sometimes, however, other areas of law, such as defamation and the Trade Practices Act, can affect the circumstances in which a person’s image can be used"[8]

Comments? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 15:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In-line citations and lead...

In-line citations should be redundant in leads as a lead should only be based on material that is in the main body. A few weeks back I fixed the article so that no info in the lead was not actually in the main article - this included making sure that any ref in the lead was also in the main body. The next step is the removal of the in-line citations from the lead as they are in the body and look ugly and unnecessary. Ie, an academic paper doesn't contain such citations in its synopsis (ie, Lead). It might seem a radical move to some to remove cites from a lead - it certainly seemed problematic for me when it was suggested in and FAC that cites should be removed from the lead of Indonesia. But, once the material (and cites) is in the main, there is really no problem. Just ensure that if facts in the lead are questioned, that the questioning editor be referred to the verifying lead in the main body. Thus, it is a stylistic rather than content/verification issue. regards --Merbabu 06:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Wiki guideline about opening facts being revisited later in the article? Most current Wiki articles have at least some info in the lead that is not repeated later. Should it be formatted like an academic paper? What about banal facts in the lead (birthday etc)? What about controversial facts in the lead? Shouldn't they be referenced for safety?Lester2 08:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
These might not exactly answer your questions, but they are a start: WP:LEAD, WP:MOS. Shot info 08:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand Lester's comments. Can you explain it differently, please? The lead does not need to contain cites, as they must be in the body. I am not questioning Howard's birthday - but you could find a ref for that if you wanted to. --Merbabu 08:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I read the links 'Shot Info' posted. I think that answers my questions. Thanks--Lester2 10:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In hindsight, I think it's better to leave the citations in the intro. I rewrote the intro about a month ago, and as per Wiki guidelines, added citations at the time of writing. From experience, facts that some people may find uncontroversial are the subject of fiery debates by others. In an article like this one, any fact may be controversial. The inline citation numbers may "look ugly", but even if the fact is not controversial, they allow the reader to find out where the information was sourced from. They serve a purpose. Although it may be appropriate for an academic work to cite facts only in the body of the article, I don't think a Wikipedia article needs to be formatted like an academic article. The Wiki guidelines actually suggest that, when there is controversy, facts should be cited every time they appear. I think it's better to leave existing citations in place, ugly or not. Cheers, --Lester2 22:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But all the cites removed were all in the body. There is nothing controversial and if anyone challenges they can be directed to the body. It's worked fine like this for months on Indonesia where a number of potentially controversial facts are listed. It's not so much a question of being ugly but about readability. regards --Merbabu 00:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-neutral Howard Upbringing Quote

  • Exclusive use of, and sole reliance upon, Howard's quote, "I was sort of brought up in a home that sort of believed in the values of hard work and honesty and commitment to one’s country, and commitment to one’s community", to portray his upbringing, is non-neutral. I propose its removal. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 05:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually believe the quote fails WP:NOT, just as I also believe the commentary on it fails WP:NOT - his opinions on his childhood are not terribly relevant to an article on himself. I'd be happy to see them both go. Orderinchaos 09:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I would agree with removing that text because I think it violates NPOV and I don't think it is all that relevant overall. Sarah 11:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I think that if we pull the subject's own quotes and speeches out of biographical articles, then the articles are going to be all the poorer. Copraschemes aside, I don't think that we are going to find a counteropinion from anybody who knew the young John Howard. Seriously, are we going to get an uncle or cousin saying that the lad pulled the wings off flies, or a schoolmate saying that he bullied the kids from the Catholic school down the road? Or anything like that? --Pete 16:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove I think. These sorts of things tend to be rather self-serving. We can say directly what good things he did wrt to his values system if necessary. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Violates NPOV, and yes, self-serving. No opposition to removal, in fact, I might do it myself if no one else protests. DEVS EX MACINA pray 06:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed as per consensus. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 14:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Just to add my support to removing it. Daniel 09:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • So any quote attributed to the individual who the page is about is non-neutral? Can we apply this logic to the Kevin Rudd page please? I expect your support. (Stirling Taylor 09:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
Not "any quote". Singular quotes, either from or about the article subject, about matters that cannot be verified through additional sources, which may be construed to either unduly favour or disfavour the subject. Please seek, rather than expect, consensus. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 10:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

New "Political provenance" section

I've added this to distinguish the details of Howards youth and family from the details of his political engagement, which is distinct again from his commencement as a Member of Parliament. The intended effect is better narrative/flow). --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 16:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Incumbent?

PWNAGE!!!!!!! John howard isnt Prime Minister anymore, or he wont be. Benelong got owned by McKew! WOOT edit: sorry, that was on the tv. ITS probable that John Howard will lose benelong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.67.26 (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He is on tv right now conceding. Unfortunatly the article cannot be updated because it is protected! Leaderofearth (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's technically incumbent until Kevin Rudd is sworn in... mjec (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

East Timor

Immense public pressure? This implies that Howard was unwilling to act until some kind of "immense public pressure" ?! Citation is needed to show that Howard was unwillin to act , and to show what the immense public pressure was.

-- Stirling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stirling Taylor (talk • contribs) 09:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Economic Management section

The section titled Economic Management, recently added by User:Prester John, is biased >>link<<. This section can only be viable if it is expanded with a detailed coverage. The version that User:Prester John added is a single "glory statement". It also does not contain any independent (ie non-Howard-government) references. Glory statements are OK if they are part of a balanced in-depth coverage that goes into both the positive and negative aspects of the subject. But a glory statement sitting on its own is unsatisfactory. As it stands, the section should be deleted. --Lester2 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Economic management is an important part of any PM's record. I advise against deleting all mention. Why do you want it gone anyway - it looks like Howard's done well on the economy, what with the full employment and all. --Pete 01:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't necessarily want it removed. But if there's going to be a section about economy, you have to have a complete coverage of it which includes more than one viewpoint. Some economists have said that housing affordability and mortgage stress are greater now than in the 1980s (just one example of another viewpoint). Also, the heading attributes any economic factors to Howard's management. --Lester2 01:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you and PJ thrash out some mutually acceptable wording here. I really don't want to see the article turn to trench warfare yet again, with discussion the last resort instead of the first. --Pete 03:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The sentence needs expanding to at least a paragraph or two, or it needs removing. It's that simple. It is not an encyclopaedic entry to state what has been stated without adding detail, rationale, or context. Just more fluff by Prestor. Timeshift 10:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I added that section, not Prester. "Economic management" is a notable theme of this (and previous) terms. I didn't have anything specific to add to it at the time of its creation. Can it be left there a while longer, so that all editors can come to a considered view about whether it stays/goes and/or what content belongs in it? Omitting this significant theme would be of detriment to the article. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 12:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The trouble with any section on economic management is that it is hard to see what can be attributed to Howard. The growth period began exactly 16 years ago. It looks like it may be about to slow. Housing is not as affordable. How much can be attributed world factors, resources booms, sub-prime mortgage rates etc etc? I think it should be deleted in its current state. It still exists in the DIFF link above.--Lester2 05:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There's two contexts in which I see this subsection as distinctly relevant: actual economic performance/policy (which Lester2 refers to above) and 'economic management' as a enduring theme in political debate about fiscal rectitude (who lays claims to it and how). These elements should be able to be incorporated in a neutral fashion that adds value and relevance to the article but, not being an economist, I'm not sure where to start on either. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 06:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Lester, I think you've provided part of the answer above. This subsection could reasonably include detailing the Howard government's claims to good economic management as well as give appropriate weight to credible alternative views. Whichever way we look at it, the economic situation is an important part of the overall political situation. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 06:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I still don't think this section deserves to stay, at least not in its current form. It carries the statement "As a result of prudent financial management, the Government has reduced the burden of Federal Government debt." Was it prudent management? Both sides of politics these days pay off debt by selling government assets. What's worse, the only reference for this statement is a government PDF file issued by DFAT. Time to delete! --Lester 05:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but reword. The government often and loudly claims to be a good economic manager, and points to elimination of debt for one. But Wikipedia definitely should not being making value judgements such as calling them "prudent", or using flowery expressions such as "burden of ... debt". Peter Ballard 06:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I can see by the edit warring and reverting that it is difficult to agree on which government was responsible for economic ups & downs, let alone whether it can be claimed to be the actions of John Howard himself. The economists generally agree that the sustained period of economic growth began 16 years ago. As far as interest rates go, that's set by the Reserve Bank of Australia which is supposed to be independent from any government. Unlike other facts and policies about Howard in this article, economics is always going to be based on opinion. That's why we're better off without it.--Lester 07:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The section (currently) says nothing about interest rates or growth. The only issue in the section is the level of government debt. That is not a matter of opinion. It is a documented fact that the Howard government has had surplus budgets and used the money to pay off debt; and that the Hawke/Keating governments did not. (And that the Howard government has loudly trumpeted this). The significance of paying off that debt is disputed, which is what I've tried to reflect in quoting the ABC article. Peter Ballard 07:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I strongly concur with Peter Ballard. This section should remain and ought to at least capture (wrt govt debt, interest rates, productivity, unemployment, interest rates, etc) the significant political context of "economic management", with optional mention also of the unextrapolated economic facts/statistics and/or tie-in with Economy of Australia. --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
EDIT WARS: I call on the edit wars to stop, regarding John Howard's handling of the economy. It renders this discussion useless if others are going to revert the content without discussing it here. --Lester 05:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
See my comment about trench warfare above, dated two weeks back. Suggest we look to the last stable version and consensus be gained for any changes. Or is that too bloody obvious? --Pete 18:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


The statement "In April 2006, the government announced it had completely paid off the last of $96 billion of Commonwealth net debt inherited when it came to power in 1996." is just a modified form of Howard Government propaganda. I attempted to balance this by adding "In world terms, this debt was relatively small, less than half that of the OECD average.[1] The Hawke/Keating government had inherited part of this debt in turn from the Fraser government, of which John Howard was the Treasurer." I have included an uncontentious reference for the first point. I am happy to supply a reference for the second point although I thought it was uncontentious--the Fraser/Howard Government ran deficits, leaving a final projected deficit of $9.6 billion in 1983 (equivalent to around $20 billion in 1996 dollars). Why not try to improve and balance this section rather than deleting facts? AussieBoy 04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that those points are your points, i.e. WP:OR. What I've tried to do is add criticisms others have made. All I could find was the economists' mild criticism in the ABC article I added. If Labor (or others) have argued that the debt was low, or that Howard as treasurer contributed, then by all means add it. But as far as I know they haven't. Peter Ballard 06:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ON HOWARD ECONOMICS:

An article in The Australian talks about Howard's economic legacy. There's another article in The Age.--Lester 01:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Opinion pieces aren't generally accepted as reliable sources. You stated above that "economics is always going to be based on opinion. That's why we're better off without it", yet now you've found an opinion that disparages Howard, we see a 180 degree flip flop from "Time to delete!" Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 01:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, Prester John, welcome to this discussion. I've been waiting for some time for you to arrive. I'd still prefer that there was no Economic Management section, for reasons stated above. However, if there must be one, it's better to have opinions from both sides of the spectrum. That is, what's good about his economics, and what's bad about his economics. What's currently up there is skewed in the governments favour, which is OK, but there also needs to be counterpoint.--Lester 02:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It is truly an honour to be part of your discussion here on the John Howard talkpage. Let us just state that for the record that the opinion articles you have created a nice big capital letter section for, do not meet reliable source guidelines. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 02:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Current references sitting on the article are a speech from Peter Costello, commenting on the economic prowess of himself (is one's own opinion of oneself a reliable source?) and an interview with Peter Costello (AM radio), which has a comment from Richard Gibbs of Macquarie Bank, a bank that is extremely closely aligned with the government. Gibbs, speaking generally about governments around the world says: "I think the prudent management of debt should be welcomed by governments", which got translated into the John Howard article as "Economists generally welcomed the news" (of debt reduction). It looks like a bit of a stretch to me. They're all opinion. It just needs 2 sides. --Lester 03:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well COstello's article is good enough for what Costello thinks. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh and rm M Costello. ALP staffer. and don't present his opinions as fact. There is no raw stat for "more complex". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thing is, Lester, with economics you don't get just two sides. There's always about five different ways of looking at something, and there are pluses and minuses in all the details. If the Aussie dollar goes up and interest rates down, that's all good, innit? Depends on your how you look at it.
Some of the opinions I see aired here remind me of letters to the editor, rather than the sort of meaty reviews we should prefer. Subjective, one-sided and shallow. Regardless of anyone's political opinions, that's not a good basis for an encyclopaedia. I'd prefer not to see any great discussion of economic perfomance in this biographical article, because the way things are going here, it's going to be disruptive and we're not going to arrive at anything really complete and balanced in the space that would be appropriate to the article. However, an article on Australian economic history spanning several different governments, say Post War Australian Economy, now that would be something we could get our teeth into. Link it back here (and a whole bunch of other articles). We might even have such an article already, who knows, Wikipedia is full of busy little beavers building useful stuff rather than trying to put a political spin on a few articles. --Pete 03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Prester's comment about a newspaper not being a reliable source for an opinion on government performance, is a government-produced source offering (glowing) opinion appropriate? hmmm. The same editor who is now suggesting a newspaper is not reliable for opinion, was only 4 days ago more than happy to use a government source to provide praise in the same article. Here. That’s just a bit too inconsistent in my opinion. --Merbabu 03:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
General consensus on wikipedia is that opinion articles in newspapers are not used for citing information. The Government report you refer to is in fact acceptable as a resource. Now I know Merbabu you come from Indonesia which has a history of corruption at it's highest levels, however Australian Government reports like the one you are refering too are released as a bi-partisan report. The Shadow Minister and staff have adequate access to the report findings and are involved in the reports creation. To say it is biased because "Howard" is in government is not correct. A clue is how nobody disputes the fundamental facts contained in the report. It is not my fault if using the language that appears in the report seems to you to be "glowing". Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 04:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Prester, just for the record, I'm an Australian born, Australian resident, educated from pre-school to Masters level in Australia. That I have chosen a user name after an Indonesian volcano (which translates to mountain of ash) and I edit Indonesia articles, doesn't mean you need to let me know about Australia, nor for that matter do I suspect you can tell me much, if anything I don't already know about Indonesia. Now that I cleared up any assumptions for you, let's...
...consider the issue at hand: once again, the problem for me is you have used the Australian government's promoted opinion of its own performance as a fact (nor been overly open about the source). How can you suggest that is appropriate? To use quote quantified figures provided would have been much more appropriate - ie, wikipedia is about showing, not telling. That you simultaneously suggest a newspaper offering negative opinion is not OK (and it probably isn't - but that's beside the point) is completely inconsistent. --Merbabu 05:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Using the Department of FA and Trade as an reference for trade figures sounds OK to me. But try as I might, I can't see an opinion piece by a leading ALP personality as being something we can use with a clear heart. --Pete 04:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Skyring(Pete), is this your explanation for joining the revert war? It is far from a proper reason to start reverting. Reverts should only be used for cases of obvious vandalism. You reverted cited information from a major broadsheet newspaper! --Lester 04:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Pete, your post appears to have missed my point and the diff I supplied. Prester John has not quoted trade figures, rather he has used (glowing) opinion the government has provided about itself. Please re-read and comment as you wish.
Also, I’d ask you (like I did once before) not move people’s posts around. I’ll let it go this time. Many thanks. --Merbabu 04:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
To make it clearer - it's a direct quote that's been used without stating who said it (ie, the govt). I adjusted it here --Merbabu 04:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely the answer is obvious guys? Instead of saying, "Howard reduced debts by increasing taxes" (or whatever), say "Labor supporters argue that Howard reduced debts by increasing taxes". i.e. put in a range of opinion and attribute it. Sheesh. Peter Ballard 04:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent - where it is contentious, then the source of opinion should be openly attributed in the main article prose, and not tucked away in the reference list. --Merbabu 04:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
...and, to knowingly do so otherwise, or if one were to insist on inserting opinion as fact after a problem has been pointed out, would be less than honest, and dare I say it, disruptive. --Merbabu 04:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, except that I don't think Paul Kelly or Robert Carling are Labor Party supporters. I don't think it would be accurate to depict their analysis as coming from Labor. Besides, the tax figures speak for themselves.--Lester 04:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah the Kelly article is a RS (I disagree with Skyring on that one), but I don't really like the way is was cited. Kelly is criticising (or at least observing) that Howard has increased tax, but I don't think he is criticising Howard for reducing debt. Peter Ballard 04:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The line in the article (that Skyring deleted) also didn't criticise the lowering of debt. It simply said that the debt reduction was achieved by raising the level of income tax for workers. That's what Paul Kelly and Robert Carling said.--Lester 05:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It really is a great pity that some are indulging in a revert war over this. While reverting continues, we may as well give up this discussion and award control of the article to the team that can muster the most reverts in the edit war. --Lester 05:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement from the article: " Economists generally welcomed the news" (of a debt reduction drive) is not supported by the reference provided.--Lester 12:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The economist said "Well I think the prudent management of debt should be welcomed by governments, certainly, but I am concerned about their zealotry in terms of debt busting and the total elimination of debt". I take that as qualified support - debt reduction is good but not as great as Costello and Howard have said. You're welcome to try to rephrase. However I had trouble finding negative comments on the debt reduction. Peter Ballard 12:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The reference quotes one guy talking in world-terms, that governments should be welcoming of debt reduction, yet the article says economists are generally welcoming of Howard's situation.--Lester 18:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The only possible way Howard & Costello could be faulted on economic management is that the budget surplus's are too big. As of October 2007, we have massive surplus's, but can't spend any of it, because it will force the economic into a massive boom which will inevitibly bust.

This is the bad thing about having a big budget surplus on which to make election promises. Making those promises are going to overheat things and we'll probably end up with high inflation again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.15.169 (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we include some of the bad facts of the economy?
If we are going to mention that the howard govenment has paid off the government debt can we also mention that howard has presided over a huge increase in the national foreign debt. from the Bureau of Statistics (or RBA Site), foreign debt has increased from roughly $200 billion au when elected in 1996 to over $550 billion. Everyone focuses on the "government debt" but the foreign debt is a huge problem. This debt is increasing at over $1.2billion a week, and unless Australia finds something to turn around the Trade Deficit it will cause a major recession. The debt is increasing at an exponential rate. The fact is Howard has not done well with the economy, he has simply fooled everyone into thinking the economy is well off by only discussing his strong points. Any bad "indicators" simply become no longer important. In howards 1996 campaign against Keating the foreign debt was an issue so why is it no longer? When howard was elected the average home was 3 times the average wage, now the avg home is 7 times the avg home. So even if interest rates are lower the actual repayments are much larger. Housing prices have inflated due to the flood of credit provided by the banks due to the large amount of foreign debt they carry. The point I am trying to make is that there are Facts which dispute howards claim as a great economic manager, and I believe some of these facts should be published.Jimcasbathog 05:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/mesi/features/foreigndebt.htm - Debt was ~400 billion when he was elected and as you can see on the graph, the huge increases happened during a non-Howard era. Also, you're mixing up Trade Deficit and Debt in a way that makes it very hard to understand what you're saying. ... and other things. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 05:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


The graph you give there is foreign debt as a percentage of GDP, not a real figure. So if you read "40" off that graph it means 40% of GDP not $400 billion. If you go to this link (spreadsheet of raw data from RBA) [9], you will see that at the end of the March Quarter in 96 the debt was $193,258,000,000 and that at the end of June Quarter 07 it was $544,075,000,000. And indicating Foreign Debt as a percentage of GDP is just one trick used by economists to attempt to hide the problem. Their logic is that the GDP indicates the productivity of the economy and hence the countries ability to pay back the debt. However the GDP does not indicate how well we can service foreign debt. GDP indicates how much money is moving through the economy not how much foreign currency we are earning. In order to pay back foreign debt Australia must run trade surplus (or sell assets, of which we are running out) so that we can earn foreign dollars and hence pay back loans legitimately (not just borrow more foreign dollars to service the loans, as we do now.(Jimcasbathog 06:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

At the end of 2006 the foreign debt was up to 61% of GDP. Jimcasbathog 07:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jimcasbathog. I agree that the Economic Management section needs changes, as the current version is biased. Previous attempts have been reverted. Whatever the economic management, there will be people who agree with it and people who disagree with it. That's why there's left & right in politics. Unfortunately, only the positive spin has remained, and criticism of the economic management has been deleted over time.--Lester 05:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Economics section changes

It's unacceptable that the uncited glory statements about the economy remain, with "Verification needed" tag on it for weeks. It's OK for there to be glory statements, but his is not the Liberal Party's own websites, and as such, some counterpoint is also needed.

  • The line about the "inherited" debt from 1996 is POV. If "inherited" is included, then it needs more explanation: Govt debt was high during the Fraser years, and we need to look at when the debt began to be lowered.
  • The line "Economists generally welcomed..." is uncited, and original research. The reference does not say "Economists generally welcomed."

Over the past month, those who added that information have made no attempt to verify it as requested. Also, there is no counterpoint, which is always needed in economic arguments. Therefore I will add a sentence of counter economic viewpoint, as put forward in this article by conservative commentator Paul Kelly. To sum up: Glory statement should remain only if they are cited. Counter arguments need to be included.--Lester 20:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove them then. Alans1977 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Economic Management articles/refs

--Brendan [ contribs ] 07:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Pete's monarchising of articles

in response to Pete's comment "Who snuck these out?"; it was Prester John who was standardising the article with other Australian PMs. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 10:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Do tell? Perhaps you'd like to do a little more research and maybe give the full story, hmmm? --Pete 18:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Prermiership infobox

I have removed the monarch and GG list from the info box, firstly as they are not central to John Howard as a person they should not be in the infobox as a 'quick glance' summery of the subject matter, whereas the fact that he is a parliamentarian of the Liberal Party, the fact that he took over as Prime Minister from Paul Keating, etc, etc, they are relevant to the subject matter, the Monarch and Governor Generals during his term as Prime Minister are not relevant for 'at a glance' summaries of the man. I think that this should be extended to the Deputies, which yet again are not relevant enough for the infobox. If there was an infobox at the Premiership of John Howard article these fields might be more relevant. Those are my thoughts, cheers, WikiTownsvillian 09:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restored them. PM articles have had them for a long time. You need to go one level up before making changes like this. --Pete 18:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It's only been in this article because you insist on it, the consensus on every other PM bio is not to have this included. It is funny that you of all editors would say something like "you need to go one level up before making changes like this" WikiTownsvillian 20:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous Issues

CAn the following be added (apologies if I have done this incorrectly; newbie) on 11 October, Howard indicated a change in Coalition policy by announcing his revised view n the merits of an amendment to the Constitutional Preambe; "We must recognise the distinctiveness of Indigenous identity and culture and the right of Indigenous people to preserve that heritage. The crisis of Indigenous social and cultural disintegration requires a stronger affirmation of Indigenous identity and culture as a source of dignity, self-esteem and pride." -Sydney Institute Speech, 11 October 2007Mc99 08:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't think its relevant specifically to JH, more to 2007 Election or Liberal Party or current government articles as JH did say that views like he held havent really changed its more to do with recognition in an overall change of the populations views(source from radio news reports). Gnangarra 11:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree, Gnangarra. It is relevant to Howard because it is coming directly from Howard. Reportedly he made the decision without consulting cabinet or the partyroom. It is of similar relevance as the Indigenous intervention in the NT. For that reason, I propose the re-titling of that section to "Indigenous relations" or "Indigenous affairs" and including appropriate commentary on Howard's unexpected new (for him) approach to indigenous reconciliation. --Brendan [ contribs ] 14:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This is hardly a bold new initiative. Look at Howard's wording for the 1999 preamble referendum:
honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation’s first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country
It's symbolism, and that's the preserve of the Prime Minister and SMOS, not Cabinet. This looks more like an election ploy than anything else, getting Rudd to back Howard up or trip himself up over details. Possibly both. However, it's worth a mention, because it will probably have some historic impact down the track. --Pete 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mandatory Detention needs expanding

We need to expand the mandatory detention section to include more aspects of the asylum seeker situation, and the detention of children. Even though there is a separate article on Mandatory Detention, these facts need to be briefly stated in the main Howard article, as it was a hallmark of the Howard government. I will add more facts to this section shortly.--Lester 04:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that you write it in a balanced way that won't be immediately reverted? Save everyone time and trouble, you know? --Pete 04:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Lester, the edit as it stands is better over at Mandatory detention in Australia. Also the entire section is better split between the second, third and current terms (although it hasn't really been the issue in the current term). Incidently the previous revision was a superior summary of events (IMHO). Shot info 05:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The dedicated article on Mandatory Detention is a good place for great detail. However, I believe the article shouldn't be used to hide the basic facts of the issue away from the John Howard article. The Howard article should briefly mention the main points.
I removed the line about mandatory detention being started by Keating, only because it lacked context as it was situated in the Cornelia Rau section. The Mandatory Detention section still needs an intro, which may include the Keating bit, but also mentions the difference between Howard & Keating on the issue. It also needs to mention the mainland desert detention centres. If someone adds the Keating line back in (with context), I can add a reference to it. Mandatory detention began in 1992.--Lester 05:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you on any of your salient points, except that there seems to be more detail about the subject in this article than the other. This is Wikipedia, "hiding" something is as far as it is a click away. But doing what you have done could be called a WP:POVFORK. The Howard article should briefly mention the main points, but doesn't instead it mentions points not detailed in Mandatory detention in Australia (and introduces new information). The Keating info belongs in Mandatory detention in Australia. The desert information belongs in Mandatory detention in Australia. All that needs to remain here is the context that the Howard government continued the existing policy of Mandatory detention with some small pointers that specifically were raised in different terms. Shot info 06:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Below is what I think the section should contain, the reason being is that the section refers to the 2004-present so information for period before that shouldn't be included like all the other sections.. Below is a draft proposal to the wording, only keeping 2004-pres information and have it in chronological order. Gnangarra 06:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wording Proposal

The Howard government faced pressure after it was revealed in February, 2005, that a mentally ill German citizen and Australian resident, Cornelia Rau, had been held in detention for nine months. The government then established the closed non-judicial Palmer Inquiry promising that the findings would be made public. In May, it was revealed that another Australian, subsequently identified as Vivian Solon, had been deported from Australia and that the department responsible was unable to locate her. By late May, it was revealed that an additional 200 cases of possible wrongful detention had been referred to the Palmer Inquiry.[2] Also at this time Howard faced backbench revolt from small numbers of his own party demanding that reforms be made.[3] On 9 June Australia's longest serving detainee, Peter Qasim, was moved to a psychiatric hospital.[4] The long-term detention of asylum-seeker children ended in June 2005, due to a rebellion of Liberal backbench MPs, headed by Petro Georgiou, with the support of Bruce Baird, Judi Moylan and Russell Broadbent. [5]

How about this? Not perfect, but tightens up the above, and follows the [5] reference above. Also removes some of the duplication and editorialising. Feel free to take on board or not.
The Howard government established the closed non-judicial Palmer Inquiry following the revelations in February, 2005 that Australian resident, Cornelia Rau had been held in detention. In May, it was revealed that another Australian, subsequently identified as Vivian Solon, had been deported from Australia and that the department responsible was unable to locate her. By late May, it was revealed that an additional 200 cases of possible wrongful detention had been referred to the Palmer Inquiry. Also at this time Howard faced backbench revolt from small numbers of his own party demanding that reforms be made to the existing detention policy. Key points included women, children and families currently in detention centres and residential housing projects been freed into the community with reporting arrangements. Shot info 07:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Both are OK in parts - a combination of both is good. I think we need to spell out exactly what we are saying rather than editorialise which both tend to do. Just state the facts rather than describe/editorialise them. Ie, "Faced Pressure"? "Back bench revolt"? - these seems to be a bit of editorialising, even weasly. --Merbabu 07:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Merbabu, maybe remove the section from Also at this... thru to end and replace with the piece starting from Australia's longest serving detainee... that keeps the dates and presents the facts only not editorialised wording. Either way a Backbench revolt is exactly what was going on end result is

The Howard government established the closed non-judicial Palmer Inquiry following the revelations in February, 2005 that Australian resident, Cornelia Rau had been held in detention. In May, it was revealed that another Australian, subsequently identified as Vivian Solon, had been deported from Australia and that the department responsible was unable to locate her. By late May, it was revealed that an additional 200 cases of possible wrongful detention had been referred to the Palmer Inquiry. On 9 June Australia's longest serving detainee, Peter Qasim, was moved to a psychiatric hospital.[4] The long-term detention of asylum-seeker children ended in June 2005, due to a rebellion of Liberal backbench MPs, headed by Petro Georgiou, with the support of Bruce Baird, Judi Moylan and Russell Broadbent. [5] Gnangarra 07:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - getting better. :) Getting back to the "faced pressure" bit, i guess we should mention that it was a big controversy - there was indeed a big hoo-ha - as long as we can actually describe it (who, what, how, etc) rather than "faced pressure", "controversy", and certainly not "hoo-ha" (just kidding). --Merbabu 07:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Further, could we actually say what the revolt/rebellion was? Those words are just media words. Wasn't it a threat to cross the floor, and/or introduce a private members bill. --Merbabu 07:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
<ack, all the edit conflicts> Looking better, although there needs to be other "bits" (not specifically above but associated with Man Detention) located in Howard's earlier terms. Otherwise, this looks like an oddball hanger. Couple of questions: Is the reference to Peter Qasim needed here, or over in the Man Detention article. It doesn't really have anything to do with Howard nor his term (unless I am misreading the reference??). Also the backbenchers didn't rebel, but they did threaten to cross the floor (although this could be an "oddball" comment with readers unfamiliar with Westminster systems). And it just wasn't children (per the supplied reference). So perhaps this sentence could be The long-term detention of asylum-seeker women and children ended in June 2005, due to Liberal MPs Petro Georgiou, Bruce Baird, Judi Moylan and Russell Broadbent threatening to cross the floor. Shot info 07:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It's my guess that the Howard government will be remembered for the legacy of the Iraq war and Asylum-Seeker policy more than any other issues. Yes, mandatory detention began with Keating in 1992. Also, Labor supported Howard on most of the issues surrounding asylum-seekers. Labor's senate support was needed to pass the asylum-seeker legislation, (eg Temporary Protection Visa legislation). Whether one agrees with what happened or not, both parties were up to their necks in it. We had large detention centres constructed in the outback, with larger numbers of detainees than ever before staying for longer periods of time. It changed Australia and it changed the fortunes of the Howard government. Any rundown of the Howard government years would be seriously lacking without a mention of this.--Lester 11:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You know, this statement of POV has so much hyperbole, I just don't know where to start, so I think I will just ignore it until you decide to help us edit an encyclopedia :-/ Shot info 11:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You should have done it the other way 'round, 'Shot Info'. You should have discussed the text rather than discuss the editor (in a disparaging way)--Lester 12:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Amusingly you should have read what was written above. Also it is better that you bring your edits here rather than just go ahead in articlespace. It is quite clear that you just enjoy making contentious edits. This is very disruptive. If you don't want to be labeled as a disruptive editor, stop editing disruptively. You have had a lot of time to learn the ways of consensus building but you don't seem interested in doing so. So, to reiterate, I think I will just ignore it until you decide to help us edit an encyclopedia. Shot info 23:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I kinda agree with what lester is saying but that should be covered in the overviews of each period as the policies did changed, and associated events are significant by themselves. What this discussion is about is the section relating to the current term 2004-onwards. The revolt I think is something that should be in the main article with the current brief mention. In the context of this article it should just be hitting the major factors which had a direct influence on JH. That would mean that Peter Qasim probably isnt all that relevant as it didnt have a direct influence. Gnangarra 12:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Gnangarra, your suggestion about moving those Mandatory Detention issues to the appropriate years is valid. The children in detention could be moved to 1998-2001. The Pacific Solution could be moved to 2001-2004. Petro Georgiou to 2005. Another solution would be to separate the 2004 sub headings from 2004. That is, allow them to transverse time. I think this would work. This is how the George W Bush article is laid out.--Lester 12:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

All, please stick to discussing the proposals, etc, in a civil way - don't discuss editors in a bad faith or uncivil way. So far, this little section has showcased great wiki collaboration in the midst of many other edit wars and talk page arguments. Well done - keep it up. --Merbabu 12:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there is any consensus for Lester removing of facts (the origins of MD), POV altering of wording ie "rebellion", and addition of non reliable sources "opinion articles from newspapers. I am reverting back to the long standing version until all these pionts are cleared up. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The origins of MD are for the MD article this article is about JH and given that its a summary of events it should be only about events from the period in question and then only those that are related directly to JH. What ever is presented should be free of POV, which citations do you have a problems with and why? Gnangarra 16:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For a start there is Lester now trying to inject this opinion piece as a reference. It doesn't seem to matter how many times you inform him of the fact that wikipedia frowns upon these sources, especially with such an abundance of "real" material, it just flows off like water off a ducks back. I object to removing the clarification of which government introduced MD, as it reinforces the mistaken belief amongst most Australians that MD began with Howard. I also object to Lesters trying to increase the "revolt" to a "rebellion". Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 16:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree on the ref http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/16/1084646067810.html as the site clearly show its from their opinion piece section, as shown by the directory tree for the article Home > Opinion > Robert Manne > Article . This cant be considered a WP:RS when asserting facts about the incidents Gnangarra 17:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong per say with opinion pieces - it's how they are used/reported. If there is factual information within them that can be used that is fine - however, opinion taken from the article and quoted as fact is a big no no. That would be like quoting a government opinion on its own performance as fact. ;-) --Merbabu 23:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
In this case where the information was widely reported there no need to refer to opinion pieces, if the only source that can be found is an opinion piece then we should be questioning if the information is even worthy of inclusion in a section that is only a summary of a larger article. Gnangarra 00:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just had another look at the Prester John's revert and the opinion piece. This revert was unjustified. From my reading - correct me if I'm wrong – the info in the article opinion piece is merely facts from the govt’s report. There is nothing wrong with using the piece in this manner. No opinion was quoted. Further and worse, a lot of other info was removed on the pretext of not quoting opinion pieces – yet 90% of the removed info had nothing to do with the “opinion piece”.
Why can’t this be discussed on talk pages? At least, why not just remove the small piece in question - not the whole lot. The reverter is very quick to demand other users use the talk page – yet freely undertakes blanket reverts on false pretences. --Merbabu 01:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
First, some of the comments (further up the list, above) are again aimed at attacking the editor, rather than discuss the content. Discuss the reliability (or otherwise) of The Age article, but leave comments about the editor out of it.
Second, while newspaper editorials may give opinions about whether an event is good or bad, the factual information within is still bound by the newspaper's reputation and the newspaper's adherence to the laws of libel. In this case, it was used to source the numbers of those in detention. It was chosen because it was near the top of the list when Googled.--Lester 00:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Lester, you yourself discuss the behaviour of other editors at the drop of a hat, making complaints on ANI and elsewhere. So don't come over all preachy, comrade. Your behaviour is a significant and ongoing problem, simply because you cause disruption, sparking edit wars and long pointless discussions. Your history is plain to see: everything you touch turns into an argument. --Pete 00:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The incivility of this thread is appalling. Anyone reading this can plainly see who is being uncivil, who is using personal intimidation, and who is making personal attacks against other editors, rather than discussing the topic at hand. Personal attacks are being used as a means of derailing a legitimate discussion.Lester 01:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC) The incivility of this thread is appalling. Remind us who started it off, Lester, and see again my comment about being disruptive. --Pete 01:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Both Lester and Skyring should cut it out - you both sound like little children. If you can't focus solely on the matter at hand and not each other, I suggest you butt out. Niether of you are helping (or is that your plan?) At least keep it of this page to not interuppt discussion. Mess up your own talk pages. --Merbabu 01:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Merbabu, you're absolutely right. Problem is that while Pete is always happy to antagonise others on article talkpages with his idiosyncratic brand of so-called "humour" ("remind us who started it off", indeed Pete...), he deletes any such commentary from his talkpage as "trolling". He's entitled to do that, but then ought not be surprised when editors take it to the article talkpage or ANI page to defend against his and Prester John's infantile, antagonistic comments and actions. Case in point is the handwaving saga enacted on the Children Overboard Affair page. One would have thought that a former serial sockpuppeteer who had been blocked by Jimbo himself for a serious length of time would have learnt to play nice by now, but sadly it seems not. Nuff said. --Brendan [ contribs ] 16:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I've re-added the Children In Detention information. Slightly reworded, + new reference (for those who questioned the facts). It has been moved to the 1998-2001 section, as per suggestions above. Thanks.--Lester 01:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Can a reference of why it is relevance be included. As normal, Lester has put a poorly worded opinion piece into the article. It is sloppy, does not rest well in the overall article, and says, really nothing. Why is it relevent, why is it important. There was a hearing and report detailing this, why a opinion piece is used rather than the report fails me. I can see why Lester continually gets reverted and his cries to AN/I are ignored. Shot info 01:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the "Opinion Piece issue" is a red herring. It's only a small part of the passage in question, and in this case merely references facts in the report. Granted, citing the report directly would be better, but the way the opinion piece has been used in this article is no problem. I think we should instead focus on other issues you mention. As for wording, we have a few suggestions here that state facts rather than comment on them - please read. --Merbabu 01:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello 'Shot Info'. I added 2 references, both from The Age. One is a straight news story (to verify facts), the other an editorial which demonstrates notability of the issue. Googling the issue reveals an endless list of very similar articles. There is also a U.N. High Commission report, which stated similar facts. I can add the UN report as a reference if you wish. My reasoning was that the newspaper articles better demonstrated the relevance of the issue. Thanks,--Lester 02:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

References above (just for discussion)

  1. ^ http://www.dfat.gov.au/ani/appendix_one.pdf
  2. ^ "Detention probe handed 200 cases", ABC News, 2005-05-25. Retrieved on 2006-07-08. 
  3. ^ Louise Dodson. "Howard explodes at MPs' revolt", The Sydney Morning Herald, 2005-05-25. Retrieved on 2006-07-08. 
  4. ^ a b "Longest-serving detainee moved to psychiatric hospital", ABC News and Current Affairs, 2005-06-09. Retrieved on 2006-07-08. 
  5. ^ a b Howard yields to rebels. The Age (2005-06-18). Retrieved on 2007-10-16.

Mandatory detention needs expanding

Looking at Lester's changes, I can see that they tell only one side of the story, and that balance needs to be added. For example, John Howard locks up mad people and kids. Well, Cornelia Rau presented as a non-citizen, giving made up names. Somehow Lester doesn't think this worth mentioning. Likewise children. The fact that they were detained along with their families seems to have escaped Lester's attention. I can see an expansion of Lester's edits to restore a bit of balance, so that those without our presumed familiarity with the event of the past decade or so can get the full picture.

Better yet, how about we cut it back, provide a link to the main article, and keep everything in proportion here, allowing whoever wants to edit the main article to spread themselves around to their heart's content?

I can't say that I'm looking forward to six weeks of battling away as extremists attempt to refashion this article into a magnificent piece of election advertising, supported by opinion pieces from party staffers. And when things get tight, guerrilla tactics and IPsocks make an appearance. May I suggest that apart from major revelations (and an election campaign is a great time for such things to emerge), we frown upon any major changes to the article apart from the 2007 election campaign section? --Pete 00:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks.--Lester 01:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Lester, thank you for confirming what I suspected, you aren't interested in stopping personal attacks, you would rather they continue. I suggest a little bit of WP:DENY is in order here. Shot info 01:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Shot Info. My reply had been deleted, possibly accidentally. However, the comment I was replying to was still there. So I reverted the talk page. Your comment may have been inadvertently deleted in the reversion, which was not my intention. Thanks, --Lester 01:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The encyclopedia anyone can edit?

People need consensus to add, rather than remove content now? Wow. Timeshift 02:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What, you never read WP:BLP? Shot info 02:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral point of view (NPOV)
  • Verifiability
  • No original research Timeshift 02:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
And have you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means ?203.10.77.190 —Preceding comment was added at 04:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I take that equates to a "no"? Shot info 03:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Similar edits elsewhere in Wikipedia.--Lester 02:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."
WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles" --Ronz 20:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing "poorly sourced" about content referenced with a news story from The Age newspaper, Melbourne. --Lester 20:58, 17 October

2007 (UTC)

Well, when the source is an opinion piece by Robert Manne, who has devoted his whole adult life to attacking the Howard Government, it's not at all a savoury source. --Pete 01:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, look at what is actually being cited from the article. It's not an opinion, rather facts from a report. having an opinion is one thing, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that he is lying about those specific "facts", but if people insist the thing to do would be to quote the report directly. --Merbabu 01:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, there were 2 references provided. One was a straight news item, as stated before, for factual verification. The other, an editorial by Robert Manne said the same thing, but was included to show notability and relevance of the event, which some people had discussed earlier.--Lester 01:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
"Incarcerated"? "Imprisoned?" That's opinion, right there. --Pete 01:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That's your problem with it? Talk about storm in a teacup. Then just change the word you don't like - or quote the report. "Detained" maybe? Being bold sometimes means just doing something small to fix something small, not blanket reverts and rambling discussion - the word consensus seems to get chucked around, but it's only possible if people work towards it, rather than do their best to stymie it. --Merbabu 01:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You'd do well to avoid strawman arguments: "That's your problem with it? Talk about storm in a teacup." It's thin stuff and impresses nobody, least of all me. If you want to find a consensus, then try working with other editors, rather than amusing them.
No, it's not my only objection to Lester's edit, as I am sure you instantly appreciated. It does, however, undermine his claim about opinion pieces. --Pete 01:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Skyring, how specifically does one show that they are "working with you". I trust not by saying "I'm unimpressed" or that you are "amusing" me? I have not added anything into the article on this topic, much less reverted anything, but have actively contributed here providing alternatives and suggestions here on talk. How specifically, have i not worked with others? I'd really like to know, so I can modify my behaviour. Perhaps, you could point out, specifically, how are doing are working towards consensus here and I can learn from that. Really. --Merbabu 02:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
See my above comments on strawman arguments for your answer there. How many times do you need to be told? You know your own attitude towards me, as do I, so just who are you trying to kid by pretending otherwise? Seriously? --Pete 02:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you see it as a Strawman argument, but it was honest and intended in good faith when I said I don't see the big deal in changing the "opinionated" term "imprisoned". What more can I say? --Merbabu 02:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The rest of it. Don't try to kid a kidder. But, without frankness, there's not much point continuing this discussion, especially here. --Pete 02:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A start would be the proposed edit appearing here. Then discussion to form consensus per WP:CONSENSUS, rather than the current method, which is add poor edit, remove poor edit, wikilawyer, add poor edit, remove poor edit... Shot info 01:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely in principle. But all people have to want consensus. It’s all too easy to scupper said consensus if one doesn’t want it. Further, there was discussion above but that got over-shadowed by people who’d prefer to revert and a slanging match across both “sides”.
Rather than scuppering consensus and reverting, because the word “imprisoned” is thought to be too POV, why don’t people just be bold and make small changes in good faith? (that’s partly a rhetorical question). --Merbabu 02:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
See my above comments on strawman arguments for your answer there. Lester's behaviour has got to the point that it is disruptive. Almost all of his edits generate controversy and lengthy discussion, revert wars and general unpleasantness in editing. When he puts forward a paragraph that he surely knows will be instantly reverted, one has to wonder about his motives.
Having said that, I have also praised him for good work (especially research skills) and co-operation in the past. The Lyall Howard article displayed this. I hate to see anybody follow my example of two years back and fall into destructive behaviour. Wikipedia isn't an ideal world and the wikigods are overworked and all too quick to deal with a problem by squashing it. --Pete 02:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Being bold is not a editing criteria for BLPs. WP:BLP tells us otherwise. WP:PRACTICAL tells us how to approach consensus. There are complaints on edit wars. How to stop edit wars, discuss edits first. Something I note that editors don't do before complaining about edit wars. Probably why admins ignore them, it's called WP:DENY. Shot info 04:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting......Cheers, Lester 07:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussing and debating these issues takes more than childish throwings of WP:PAGES which may or may not be related to the issue at hand. Timeshift 07:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh, we are just out of the add poor edit & remove poor edit phases and now into the wikilawyer phase. I expect the poor edits will be readded soon enough. Shot info 23:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mandatory detention (continued)

Revert War

I see an edit war has broken out. It seems some people have deleted all mention of children in detention. I can't see any justification for this. Some people (above) have said they don't like any article by Robert Manne to be used as a reference. However, when another reference by a regular news journalist which states similar facts is used, the same people are still edit waring over it. Nobody has contested the facts about how many children were in detention, or the figures used. There exists 100s of similar articles if anyone wants more references. The mandatory detention of children in detention centres was one of the biggest controversies surrounding the Howard government. To delete all mention of it does not make sense, and the reverters have not properly explained their justification for deleting everything.--Lester 01:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There really needs to be a "Prime Ministership of John Howard" article where stuff like this can go. 58.106.24.254 08:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikitownsvillian might have a thing or two to say about that... Timeshift 08:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I see the usual tag-teams have formed to continue the revert war and avoid 3RR. Rather than delete referenced content, they should be here discussing their justifications for deleting it. --Lester 02:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The edit history of this talk page makes it quite clear that discussion is taking place. --Pete 02:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Context

Skyring(Pete), you objected to the word incarcerated (here's a dictionary definition. Why did you object to the word? What is your preferred alternate word, and why do you prefer that alternative?--Lester 02:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite endless discussion on the Manne opinion piece, and Lesters insistance that inserting a random phrase is good copyediting he has again reverted it back in. I implore people to read the article with his changes added in. Is there any context, to the the paragraphs above or below? Is the relationship to Howard established? Or does it look like someone injecting a point anywhere he can into the encyclopedia. In the interest of wikipedia's integrity I am going to remove it. I expect he will complain on every noticeboard possible about. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 17:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Prester John makes a fair point. The disputed inclusion, as written, lacks context and relevance to the article subject. --Brendan [ contribs ] 10:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The issue of children in detention is a huge policy issue that caused great controversy in the community, and division within the government, with the backbencher revolt from Petro Georgiou and others. The issue is major, and should not be deleted from the article. If it needs context, then we should discuss ways to give it context. The original version included the backbencher revolt, but that section was deleted along the way, leaving just the numbers and statistics of children in detention.. Now the article has no mention of the controversies of Woomera, the riots, Temporary Protection Visas or the rifts over children in detention. It's part of our history and one of the legacies of the Howard government.--Lester 11:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest that instead of accusing other editors of all sorts of things, you read the advice I gave you here, where I suggest that instead of repeatedly trying to insert controversial edits, you discuss them first. I've indicated one area of difficulty with your wording, for example, but you ignore that, instead preferring to use emotive terms. Perhaps the major problem with your attitude towards our encyclopaedia is that you see it as an opportunity to present a political position, rather than a factual one. --Pete 11:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Lester, I agree the policy issues are significant. Can you suggest a reword that relates the issue to John Howard? Context, NPOV language and wording that directly demonstrates relevance to the article subject are key. --Brendan [ contribs ] 11:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion: Detention centres goes back under to the Mandatory Detention subheading. It can come off the back of Cornelia Rau. The Palmer report in 2005 was critical of the Immigration Department's handling of Rau, and also the detention centres. This report also gave Petro Georgiou the impetus to launch his famous rebellion with 3 other MPs over the issue of children in detention. We quickly recap the numbers of children in detention.
On the issue of NPOV wording when talking about immigration detention centres and those inside, I used the word "incarcerated", which 'User:Skyring(Pete)' objected to. Those inside were kept against their will. They were not free to leave. It was long-term. Any alternative word choices should reflect the reality of those points. Otherwise we would not be describing the situation as it was. Any alternate words to describe the long-term locking up of someone against their will?--Lester 12:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Good outline, but needs to include Howard reaction/position/statement/perspective. The word "incarcerated" is not a major concern for me, but I can see how other editors might object. "Incarcerated" does have a certain criminal connotation that doesn't seem right in this context. "Detained" means the same thing and seems a more NPOV term. --Brendan [ contribs ] 13:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
A small "dot point" of information which then links to the further fleshed out information over at Man Det in Aust, is more appropriate, and it needs to be (as Bren points out) in the context of "John Howard". Shot info 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The Howard perspective (which doesn't appear to apply to other aspects of this article, eg Economy section) is already in this. He had a major backbench revolt on his hands, which forced him to compromise. Regarding the issue of word choice, that is, "incarcerated" Vs "detained", a schoolkid can get detained by the teacher after school, for being naughty. Detention can mean something like this. Isn't "incarcerated" a more accurate description for what happened? If we call it detention, then we should add that it was detention behind locks, high security gates, and 2 metre high barbed wire fences. What's wrong with telling how it was?--Lester 14:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Lester (and others), the thing about consensus and collaboration, is that it involves a dirty "c" word - compromise. Why not go with "detained" if it means your "opponents" are accepting of your proposal? The problem with these debates (or is it wars of attrition?), is that people want all or nothing.
I think we need to try harder for the Howard angle - obviously, he was the leader of the government enforcing the policies, but what did he have to say about the issue? --Merbabu 14:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the children in detention paragraph back under the Mandatory Detention heading. The word "incarcerated" has been replaced with "held" and "detained". Petro Georgiou had used the word "imprisoned" to describe the children in detention. I feel that "held" and "detained" are ambiguous, but have used those words to appease the people who commented (above) against the word "incarcerated". I had hoped for more justification from the people who wanted to omit the word "incarcerated", as there have been no specific reasons given (above) for removing it. Also, for those who look for compromise, reverting the article isn't a good-faith method of reaching it. Thanks, --Lester 00:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Children Overboard

Well, without commenting on the who and what, has various editors reviewed the information being edited in/out at the moment? It seems to clash with information in Children Overboard itself. It is better to simply have "Earlier that month, the Children Overboard controversy was sparked". Simple and factual without all the additional commentary summarised ad-hoc from the article. Shot info 04:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I support a one or two sentence summary supported by a good source and linking to Children Overboard. --Pete 06:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the concept of moving negative information to a secondary article as a means of omitting it from the main article. The secondary article, Children Overboard, will cover the issue in great detail. The primary article, John Howard, when mentioning the Children Overboard affair, should briefly outline the main points which define the controversy, both positive and negative. If we don't define why it was a controversy, then its relevance is diminished. I believe that principle should apply to all articles on all politicians.Lester 22:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, main article, secondary article....wha. On the matter relating to children overboard, the main article is Children Overboard, on matters relating to John Howard, John Howard is the main article. The issue should be mentioned....yes, but the edit in question was improper, as discussed above. Detailing the controversy does not need to be in John Howard but rather in Children Overboard, just like how an encyclopedia would do it. Shot info 23:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason John Howard is the main article is because Children Overboard is an offshoot, and an expansion of the detail of one incident in the Howard government years. I agree with you that the detail should be in the Children Overboard article, which can have many quotations from politicians and senate reports. But there must be just enough information in the John Howard article to define why it was a controversy. The alternate wording you propose does not briefly define why the issue was a controversy.--Lester 00:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need to include any detail? It's a biographical point that this event occured at this time. It needs no further explaination than that, much less detailing why it was a controversy. That's the role of the other article. Shot info 00:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It's the same old deal. Lester wants people turning to the John Howard article to get every negative slant on everything he (or his relatives or his government or his party) ever did. --Pete 16:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Stop being personal all the time, assume good faith. We could reduce the whole article to point form, without explaining relevance, and just provide a whole lot of links to other articles. But I think it's better that a summary includes a brief outline of the larger article, with enough information to show why it is relevant.--Lester 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Your contribution history allows us to go beyond assuming things. We can see for ourselves what you do, and it is as stated above. We've gone through this before. This article is a biographical article on John Howard, and while brief mentions and links to other articles are fine, when you start adding paragraphs of material best covered elsewhere, and what is worse couch them in the most negative terms according to your own POV, then it is obvious that you are at odds with the idea of an encyclopaedia written in cooperation and collaboration. Your edits are generally disruptive and you then compound your disruption by complaining to admins, who seem to uniformly examine your complaint and ignore you. Your track record of edit-warring and whining is visible for all to see, so please don't insult our intelligence by pretending otherwise. --Pete 00:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Pete, must you be so unhelpful? How does it benefit the encyclopedia to conduct kangaroo courts of other editors here? You know there are places to report untoward or disruptive behaviour so make use of them and stop clogging article talkpages with ad hominem. Especially on the topic of Children Overboard Affair, at which article you yourself were not so long ago engaged in your own POV skirmish trying to edit out the factual attribution of the Government senators reports to the two Senate inquiries as "dissenting minority" reports. At any rate, having been an extensive contributor to the Children Overboard page, I see nothing majorly wrong with the existing inclusion in the Howard article, "At the launch of the Liberal Party election campaign on 28 October 2001, Howard asserted "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come." Earlier that month, the Children Overboard Affair was sparked by Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock's comments about a certain maritime incident involving a boatload of asylum seekers. Ruddock claimed that children had been thrown into the sea. Howard and Defence Minister Peter Reith repeated and defended the claim. After the election, naval and intelligence sources refuted the claim while two senate inquiries found the claim to be untrue and that the government knew this prior to the election." If anything, it could do with adding to, for improved context: Howard's later reflections claiming the asylum seekers sank their own boat (despite the absence of evidence for that claim).
I also note that Howard's election slogan "We will decide..." has been reconfigured. The word slogan has been removed, and the quote's indented formatting removed. There were weeks of discussion about this, and the community settled on the wording that it should be called a slogan, as it was used numerous times, and used in advertising.--Lester 17:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy/Critisms section

I think it should be included, as he has a fair share of them. - 211.30.231.112 10:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


1988 quote "We will decide"...

In the Opposition years section, the article has for a long time had an historic quote from Howard:

I don't think it is wrong, racist, immoral or anything, for a country to say 'we will decide what the cultural identity and the cultural destiny of this country will be and nobody else'.

The actual quote is available from Hansard and a number of other sources. I think the interesting thing about the quote is its similarity with his 2001 election campaign quote:

"We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come."

So, both quotes have been in this article for a long time. Like them or loath them, they were said and are part of our history. Reason for bringing this up is that the lead-in sentence was changed to remove that comparison. Please view the diff here. The comparison between the two quotes was made by the newspaper articles, so its not "WP:OR" (the reason given in the edit summary). I think the previous lead-in sentence gives the quotes more relevance, and is neutral to what was said. It merely points out the similarity of the 2 quotes, made 13 years apart. I think the lead-in sentence is worth keeping --Lester 05:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. For the umpteenth time we are going to have to walk through what original research actually constitutes. Ok. Lester here it is again. Wikipedia does not care what YOU think is similiar or not similar". Wikipedia is only concerned with what we can verify using reliable sources. You can add your phrase describing how these two quotes are "similar", but you first have to show "who" thinks they are similar (again, NOT you!), "where" this opinion was published, "when" this opinion was published, and "why" this opinion is even notable in the first place. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
PJ is 100% right on this one. If the similarities between the two statements are notable, you must have sources which say so. Peter Ballard 12:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The phrases from the 1988 speech and the 2001 speech both begin with the identical words "We will decide..." followed by something about those who have immigrated to the country (eg, he refers to race in the earlier one and immigration in the latter). I didn't expect that the similarity would be contested. I thought it may have been an obvious fact that there are some similarities between the statements. The source draws the connection between the two. Maybe if the lead in said: Using the phrase "We will decide" that would be used again in 2001...--Lester 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't contest that they are similar. I contest that the similarity is worth commenting on. Remember these are two of Howard's most famous statements, about which hundreds if not thousands of articles have been written. So it's not enough to find one isolated commentator who draws a link - the observation must be reasonably widespread. Otherwise, just leave both statements in the article, and WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. Peter Ballard 00:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Continual whitewashing

Is it just me, or is this page becoming more and more like it was written by the Liberal Party every day?

Oh wait, silly me, it is! *cough* Timeshift 15:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wish that, whether an editor is a member of the Liberal Party or not, they would have the courtesy to discuss the content before reverting. To add any references to an article takes a lot of work. To roll up and hit the revert button a few minutes later (without discussing it) disregards the work that has gone into it. Regardless of what you think of the content, I believe any cited / referenced content deserves the courtesy of being discussed before hitting the revert / delete button. This allows more than one editor to be involved in the debate. If the info comes from one of the major news sources (such as Fairfax or News Limited), then it is not an issue of libel, and therefore there is time to discuss.--Lester 22:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

All I did was correct your lies, misrepresentation of sources, and falsehoods. All reasons are described in the edit summaries. There is no need to debate whether false information is to be included in wikipedia. Of the edits I made to correct your mistaken edits which ones are incorrect? Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 22:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

On the same-sex marriage issue, here are my criticisms with the revert style of edit:
  • Discussion not initiated at the time of revert
  • Original edit summary only mentioned NPOV, which is different to the "lies" explanation above.
  • Nobody is deliberately "lies". Please accept good faith. If there's an inadvertent error, please discuss.
I don't see any discussion like that above. On the particular content issues, I'll start a new heading below ("2004 Same-sex laws") so that everyone knows what content we're discussing. I invite you to join in. Thanks, Lester 23:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You have repeatedly been told to bring your inaccurate POV pushing to the talkpage before adding bogus material into the encyclopedia. From out of nowhere you have yet again added falsehoods into the article without discussion and have again screamed bloody murder when the encyclopedia is corrected. Again state which of the corrections I made are in fact not correct? Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 23:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone in a content dispute thinks the other person is not NPOV. The thing is, if you initiate a discussion (instead of hitting delete or revert) then it brings other editors into the realm, and more opinions, and while some discussions occasionally get long and time consuming, I think it's a better way of handling content disputes than the revert button. As we know, reverts are the beginning of edit wars, if everyone joins in the reverting. Cheers, Lester 00:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

2004 Same-sex laws

Here's the diff of the recent changes to the same-sex laws issues, for discussion. There were 3 news stories from the SMH used for this. 1. 2004 "PM Targets", 2. David Marr. 3. Erin O'Dwyer. Lester 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

First issue: "promised to amend" changed to "amended" (Australia's superannuation laws to end discrimination against same-sex couples).
Second issue: "the proposed amendments were never introduced" (deleted).--Lester 23:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you not aware that superannuation legislation was enacted in 2004 to give the vast majority of schemes "discrimination free" laws? I provided the references in the article. Since the legislation was enacted is appropriate to change the outdated phrase "promises to amend" to "amended". It is also appropriate to delete the falsehood "the proposed ammendments were never introduced". You really should be more careful when using half decade old references. Things do change in the meantime. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 23:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Prester. Same-sex couples who are public servants for the Australian government get discriminated against when it comes to superannuation laws. It was a major promise to the LGBT community in 2004 that, if elected, the laws would be changed to end that discrimination. That was the promise. However, the amendment never occurred. I checked your references, but it appears the same promise was made again yesterday by Malcolm Turnbull, that if elected, they will make those amendments in the next term of government. I don't believe those changes have yet occurred. So, for some people, this is the major election issue. Therefore, I think it's worthy of inclusion.--Lester 00:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I included that in the changes I made. Are you sure you read it correctly? Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 00:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I just refreshed the history page to catch up on any changes you have made. The issue I see is that in 2004 (before the 2004 election), Howard promised to end that discrimination specifically relating to Federal superannuation and public servants. It got wide press coverage before the 2004 election. During the next term of government, that law change was not done. I think the previous line that said the proposed amendments were never introduced (now deleted) was an accurate reflection of that situation. Don't you think? So Howard has made the promise again (in the last 24 hours) to amend that legislation, probably to save Malcolm Turnbull's electoral chances. It's a bit unusual for a promise to be made before 2 elections like that. I can't think of any other from the top of my head. Ironically, Howard now needs the inner-city gay community on-side to save the Turnbull's seat of Wentworth.--Lester 00:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to able to read the reference you provided correctly. Nowhere in your first reference does Howard refer specifically " to Federal superannuation and public servants". He promised a change to superannuation laws and enacted legislation that increased the superannuation rights of the vast majority of homosexuals. i.e. those working in the private sector. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I read it again, and the SMH article of 2004 still seems to say that Howard's proposed law changes will allow same-sex couples to inherit each others' superannuation. Here's the 2004 SMH quote:
"Gay couples will be banned from marrying or adopting children from overseas but will be allowed to inherit their partner's superannuation under proposed changes to marriage laws announced today."
I haven't yet cross-referenced other news articles, but there is no exclusions made here. It doesn't say "some" or "most" or "65%" will be able to get their inheritance. It'll take me 24 hours to check other news sources to see if any exclusions were announced elsewhere.--Lester 05:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a multitude of mainstream newspaper articles that state that in 2004 John Howard promised to end superannuation discrimination against same-sex couples. I will quote one of many, the most recent one, The Age 9 November 2007 (>>Read this link to The Age referece<<):

"Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull said on Wednesday the Government would change superannuation laws so that partners in same-sex relationships would get the same treatment as those in heterosexual ones.
"Prime Minister John Howard made the same promise three years ago, to placate gay voters when he moved to outlaw gay marriage in 2004, but the superannuation promise has not yet been delivered."

I ask Prester John, are you saying the many news references are wrong? It seems to spell out pretty plainly that Howard promised this in 2004 but didn't deliver it.--Lester 02:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

12 Nov, Changes

Here are the reasons for changes I made to the same-sex laws section.

  • Reinserted Howard's promise to end discrimination. It's plainly stated in the references that he made this promise.
  • Added that discrimination continued in Commonwealth superannuation. Multiple references provided, as discrimination continues to this day.
  • Removed the line: "which was extended to Commonwealth public superannuation schemes in November 2007", as it was plainly wrong, and not supported by its reference. The benefit of super inheritance was never extended to same-sex couples in Commonwealth super schemes.
  • Added line "Howard banned same-sex marriage", as banned is the word used by most newspaper references.
  • Added line "with the support of the Australian Labor Party", as the changes could not have passed the senate otherwise.

I feel the changes are solidly backed up by the newspaper references. Thanks, Lester 04:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Same sex marriage

You've made some big changes in one edit, and this is difficult to manage - so I will look into each bit as I can...
  • As for the same sex marriage edits, just because a source uses an unencyclopedic interpretation (ie, "Howard banned"), does not mean we need to repeat it here. IN fact, it's probably better to use sources such as this if the newspapers are being used as an excuse for sloppy writing here. However, I understand Lester's apparent concern that it was previously too clinical an explanation of what amendments passed, etc, without explaining what it actually means. Thus, I suggest, and have made, these changes (ignore the first bit - intermediate edit - but, scroll down to diff paragraph starting with "On 13 August 2004").
--Merbabu 09:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Merbabu. Thanks for taking an interest in this. Regarding the marriage section. I didn't particularly need to retain the word banned, as long as the article made it known that legislation would prevent same-sex marriage from taking place. My edit (12 November) had a link to the Marriage Act, as well as a quote from the changed part of the act which states that marriage is the: "union of a man and a woman to exclusion of all others." Also, the Labor support was removed from the article (Labor gave Howard the senate numbers to pass the Marriage Act amendments. Didn't you think those 3 points (Act link, Act Quote + Labor support) were important? Thanks, Lester 10:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Some thoughts...
  • Regarding the word "banned", I trust "formalising illegality" is OK?
  • I think the link to the marriage act has been there for sometime - no one seems to have removed it, and it is there now.
  • i'm not sure a quotation of the common law definition - "the union of a man and a woman to exclusion of all others" - is actually necessary, but I've just reinstated it for now. What do others think?
  • Can you be specific on why mentioning Labor party support is so important? --Merbabu 11:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How about some wording in between "banned" and "formalising illegality"? What about "prevent" or "stop" (same-sex marriages). It would probably be more accurate too.
  • The brief quote from the act ("a man and a woman") is kind of the crux of the issue. I think quoting it helps one's understanding.
  • Labor Party support is more than just a stance of theirs. John Howard managed to convince Labor to support his gay marriage ban, and it would not have passed without Labor's votes. I'd also support a reverse link on Rudd's page, where it is written that Rudd does not support s-s marriage, but it doesn't say that he voted in House of Reps against it (which is what he did). There is essentially no difference in policy between the 2 parties on s-s marriage. How the bipartisan "ban" came about is of historical significance for future readers.--Lester 19:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand why the Labor support was removed from the article. It's possible this may have been or not been in recent edits. But I can remember months ago the article mentioned Labor's support. It's not a new line, but it's not there now.--Lester 11:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Superannuation

Lester seems determined to cast his POV slant over this section yet again. Strange for him to delete references after spending so much time bleating all over wikipedia about "deletion of references". I am going to re add the legislation that Howard introduced that goes with the quote Lester is determined to include. I am going to re write it in a NPOV yet again. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 00:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lester and PJ (in no particular order), You both now seem to using the talk page which is a start – indeed at least one of you has recently "promised" to better talk page usage during a recent ANI discussion. However, using the talk page is to discuss edits and get consensus before revert campaigns. It doesn’t mean that you can do you want to the article as long as you make post on the talk page 10 secs before making the change.
Why don’t you just try proposing something and wait for a response? Try a little bit of give and take and compromise too. I think I kinda did it with the Same Sex marriage discussion above.
Hope to hear your responses. --Merbabu 01:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, we have mindless reverts from drive by editors who add nothing to the debate in terms of rational. Do people really dispute that Howard enacted legislation that removed discrimination for the vast majority of same sex workers (the private sector)? It seems odd to include a quote from Howard announcing these changes and then remove all reference to the legislation enacted. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 04:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Prester John. Welcome to the discussion. You may be interested to know that all the state governments had removed discrimination against same-sex couples from their state superannuation schemes long before this issue came up Federally. In 2004, the Federal government made a specific promise to extend this to Federal (Commonwealth) superannuation schemes. It's because of that previous election promise that there's a focus on Commonwealth schemes. Also, the candidate Malcolm Turnbull brought up the same promise again last week, which has heightened focus on the previous time the promise was made. The article previously stated that the legislation had already changed, which was incorrect and not supported by the reference, so that may be a reason why editors reverted it. Best wishes, Lester 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the referenced information you deleted was correct you just can't tell the difference between a private super fund and a taxpayer funded public super fund. The Howard quote included in this section relates to him enacting the changes that removed discrimination from private super funds. It is disingenuous to leave this quote in while removing any mention of the legislation it relates to. Like I said in the interest of balance, once the protection is removed I will add (again) the fact that legislation was passed in May 2004 that removed discrimination from private super funds. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 01:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad the word "discrimination" is gone - it should only come back if someone really really significant commented that is was the case - although we need to be careful that we are not too clinical in our descriptions such that any significance and context is removed. Whats are your thoughts (or, "rational" as you put it) on the distinction b/w private and public super? A week or so ago, sources suggested that changes were announced - there is/was an smh source in the article about it. Was this enacted? You seem to suggest it wasn't.
If it was enacted, do we thus need to make the distinction b/w private (2004) and public (2007) - ie, doesn't it become a bit trivial? --Merbabu 06:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor recently added information to the article, stating that in 2007 discrimination ended for Commonwealth public servants superannuation. This was not the case, and there was no newspaper source to back it up, so I removed it after the above discussions.
Also, Howard promised in 2004 to end superannuation discrimination against same-sex couples. The Age article calls it "discrimination", The Sydney Morning Herald calls it "discrimination". By what criteria would we not call it discrimination? Here's how the gay Star Observer is covering the story.--Lester 11:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This Nov 2007 link to the smh says:
THE Coalition has relented to pressure and will grant to gay and lesbian couples the same rights on Commonwealth public sector superannuation as heterosexual couples.
and...
In 2004 such discrimination was abolished in relation to private sector superannuation.
OK, so it says "will grant" but that this is a "falsehood" as suggested here seems to be an exaggeration. What's the latest on this issue?
As for the word discrimination - it's been explained a number of times that we can take the facts from reliable sources, but we don't have to repeat their less than encyclopaedic (tabloidy?) workding. --Merbabu 11:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not sensationalist; it's accurate. "Discrimination" is exactly what is going on here, in the literal sense of the word as well as the moral sense, and those sources support that. DEVS EX MACINA pray 12:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
In recommending against the use of the word "discrimination" I'm not suggesting that it isn't discrimination, but that the word itself is not encyclopedic. In the same manner that I don't like the use of the word "murdered" in terrorism articles (use "killed" instead) even though personally I have no problem saying that it is murder - just not in WP. --Merbabu 12:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a massive difference between "will grant" (as said in the reference), to the sentence in the article which said: (equal rights) "which was extended to Commonwealth public superannuation schemes in November 2007." This is just an election promise, so the legislation has not yet been changed, and won't be until after the election (if then). The article said the legislation change had already happened, when it had not. The article was worded in past-tense. Re Discrimination: It would be a sad day if the subject and the word "discrimination" was not allowed in an encyclopaedia. There would be many articles on civil rights that would have to be reworded if that was the case. We know that it is discrimination. Why beat around the bush and tip-toe around the subject with alternative words?'Lester 20:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Lester, I accept your comments about the 2007 promises. "Discrimination" though is still problematic - it gets into POV and all i can do is repeat that's not what we want here. If you can find a reliably sourced and significant party using the word "discrimination" that might be another story. We don't have to repeat the wording of newspapers - just the facts that they discuss. ie, what happened, when, etc. cheers. --Merbabu 02:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Election Issues

Since we've only got 12 day until the election its probably too late but...this is the major election issue. Therefore, I think it's worthy of inclusion does not make it worthy of inclusion. Also remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a blog to highlight the good or the bad of any party or candidate. Seriously how could any editor think that a few words here are going to make any difference to how a person votes on the 24th. Please keep to notable information about John Howard(marriage stance IMHO is relevant) but election issues should go in the relevant election campaign, Government term, Department articles etc. Gnangarra 10:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)



the loss of the 2007 Election nnot just for his party but loosing his seat of Benilong. Making it A sad, sad day for Mr Howard. is all i can say is Jonny be good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.64.248 (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Flag icon next to born in infobox

A drive-by (User:John) removed the flagcruft from the infobox. Skyring re-added it, and I removed it stating Well I actually agree with him. Australia is already linked. None of the previous PMs have a flag in their infobox. could be considered NPOV. 2 want it gone now, so take it to discussion for consensus. Well he reverts that, stating that as he isn't a regular John Howard article editor, that somehow his voting right of 1 as a wikipedian doesn't count? Frankly I find that offensive. Timeshift 23:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Flags in infoboxes are completely unnecessary. It's better without. We don't need to pepper article text with flags, as it is distracting, and maybe a form of nationalism which affects the appearance of neutrality. Also, the edit summaries are becoming uncivil, which is also unnecessary.--Lester 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
And another revert (what happened to this new fandangled rule that if something is disputed by just one user, it goes rather than stays until it's been decided?)... Skyring has now been reported to 3RR. Have a good day. Timeshift 00:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with above. Distracting and unecessary. Recurring dreams 00:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:MOSFLAG may be of interest here. Obviously I agree that the flag adds nothing and is distracting, which was why I removed it. --John 00:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Per MOSFLAG - Flag images, especially flag icons in biographical infoboxes, should not be used to indicate birth or death places, as this may imply an incorrect citizenship or nationality. Nice. Can someone else revert so I don't break 3RR? Ta. Timeshift 00:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Lester's comments above and thus support flag removal. --Wm 01:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x5) – get rid of them – I’m consistently removing their overuse, and no-one has ever been able to explain their benefit. --Merbabu 00:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

John's reasoning clinches the case, but it should be pointed out that Skyring only did 3 reverts so he didn't violate WP:3RR. Peter Ballard 02:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this article about John Howard or his government?

I've been watching this page for a while now, and it seems that the vast majority of its content (and almost all of the arguments) relate to things done by the Government, not by John Howard himself. This doesn't seem to me to be what a biographical article should be about. I'd suggest moving the majority of the stuff under "First term, second term" etc, to the various Howard Ministry pages, or to a separate page entitled Howard Government, 1996-Present or something like that. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeti Hunter (talk • contribs) 03:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Opposition Years: Costello "unwilling to lead"

Some editors have started reverting content about the reason Costello did not lead the party in 1995. Here's the diff of the reversion. I start this discussion out of courtesy to allow others to comment, rather than indulge in reverting each others' content.Lester 01:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't my explanation clear enough? It's discussed more thoroughly in the "Leadership speculation" section. Perhaps move that paragraph, but no need to duplicate material. (Especially since the latest edit was one sided). Peter Ballard 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The current edit is certainly a load more well referenced than saying that Costello was 'unwilling to lead'.Alans1977 01:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The first edit stated: "The party's Deputy Leader, Peter Costello choose not to step up to the leadership, because of a deal between Howard and himself". This reference was provided. Is there a dispute that such a deal happened? Is the reference wrong?--Lester 02:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm referring to the edit that exists right now. I certainly believe quoted as it is (which is very similar to what you just referenced), is a lot more reliable. Alans1977 02:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should say: Peter Costello choose not to step up to the leadership, later claiming there was a deal between Howard and himself." That attributes the claim to Peter Costello.--Lester 02:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Howard disputes it was a deal[10]. But I keep repeating: there is a balanced discussion of it, with a number of references, in the "Leadership speculation" section. I see no need to duplicate it. Perhaps say something along the lines of, "In 2006, allegations emerged that there was a deal... see Leadership speculation section". Peter Ballard 02:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"Allegations"? There are two people saying there was a deal and one person saying there was not. On top of this there has been a note, written by Howard, produced to back up the fact that there was a deal. Alans1977 02:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
While the evidence indeed looks to favour Costello's side of the story, that there was a deal, I still think we should attribute it to Costello. I don't think "allegation" is a good word (sounds like police talk), but it should at least say that Costello claims there was a deal, or asserts there was a deal, or something to attribute it to Costello.--Lester 03:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
What we have here is a disputed version of events: 1 person says one thing, 2 say another (and the note was written by McLachlan, not Howard). I agree that it is more likely that Costello is telling the truth, but to be NPOV Wikipedia needs to record both interpretations of events. Peter Ballard 03:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
In that case it would want to say that McLachlan claims there was a deal, as well. Alans1977 03:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Which is exactly what is said in the John Howard#Leadership and retirement speculation section. Again I ask, why duplicate it? Peter Ballard 03:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the deal needs to be very briefly mentioned here, because the article previously said Costello was "unwilling to lead", which contradicts Costello's version of events. If we say "Costello did not challenge the leadership, citing the existence of a deal between himself and Howard", then it puts it into context. Each section should make sense without having to refer to a later section. The later section will have more detail and cite letters, and McLachlan and whatever else surrounds Howard's leadership.--Lester 03:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Alans1977 04:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well I still don't like duplication. But so long as each mention of the affair is balanced, my objections are minor. Peter Ballard 04:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope the edit I just made is satisfactory in regards to this discussion and proper use of grammar. Alans1977 05:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag

A 'POV' tag was added to the article at 02:00, 14 November 2007. I start this section so the editor can discuss the reasons for the tag, or remove the tag. Thanks, Lester 02:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the tag be removed asap. It is excessive to tag a whole article like that when the content dispute appears to be for one article section only and a vibrant discussion about that has been taking place (per the talkpage topic above). Also, can editors please discuss edits/reverts rather than getting the article locked? BInguyen or other admin, can you please make the following NPOV copyedit under "Political provenance": "Howard failed to defeat the sitting member" to "Howard was unable to defeat the sitting member" --Brendan [ contribs ] 02:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That POV-tag really needs to be removed, for the reasons I mentioned. It serves no purpose, as the complainant has not started a discussion to list the reasons why the whole article is POV. Other editors can't act on it, as the article is locked. It requires an Administrator to remove the tag.--Lester 10:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I put in the tag that the article could do with being checked for POV because there are some sections that I believe that are POV. For example ¨Howard's chances of winning the 1987 election were destroyed when the arch-conservative Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, launched a populist "Joh for Canberra" campaign, temporarily splitting and discrediting the conservative forces. Hawke won the 1987 election comfortably.¨, which can be found in ¨Opposition years (1983-1996)¨, makes it look like it is all Sir Joh´s fault that Howard lost that election. I believe that paragraph should be completely removed. There are others that I will comment on later when I get a chance to go through the article more thoroughly. Alans1977 (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My edit

I know administrators aren't supposed to edit protected pages - I didn't even know this page was protected because there was only the padlock image on the article. My navigation method with my screen reader in the edit window means I miss all text above the edit box so I didn't notice the protection warning - making the text bold didn't help me at all. Anyway I stand by my edit and there is nothing controversial about a simple copyedit. Graham87 06:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There does not appear to be anything wrong with that edit that you made. I do not see how that could be seen to be controversial. Alans1977 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Some corrections

In the sub-section ¨Member of Parliament¨ in the section ¨Early Life¨ the first sentance reads ¨Howard's next attempt to enter parliament was at a Federal level and successful¨. This should be edited to read ¨Howard's next attempt to enter parliament was at a Federal level and he was successful¨. As the article is locked can a administrator please make this correction. Alans1977 (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)