Talk:John Howard

Restructure

I've just restructured the remainder of the PM'ship section. Ie, I've dispersed the info in thematically based sections into rough chronological order within the existing by-term structure. But, it's not purely chronological - ie, I have kept some bits together thematically. eg, the GST over the 1st two terms, the "when I'm 64" comments, and the refusal to make "the apology" i grouped together. There's probably more opportunity for a little more thematic based consolidation, but I recommend it on a *mostly* by-term basis.

Note, I did not remove any info - at least in the three restructure edits. I might have rephrased a few sentences to make it fit better, and there is most probably more re-prhasing to do to make it fit/flow better. And, this is not to say I don't want to see more changes - but I thought it about time that I re-structured it. Perhaps thematic-based sub headings can go under the terms, which I've included here in my userspace as a sample. But, i think it's a bit dodgy largely for the same reasons I'm arguing against theme based structure here.

Why this change? I agree that in theory, thematic structure has some merit. However, it just didn't work here, and indeed, I think it is very hard to get it to work anywhere, particularly if the subject is controversial. SOme of the problems here were the selection of what was to go together - the mere existence of some of these themes was POV and pointy. And the lack of others, was also a major POV problem. Based on this page's record, I really don't hold much faith in our ability to put together a well-written article based on themes.The recent series "The Howard Years" was, IMO, excellently structured. It was themed, but themed within a chronological term-based structure. I thought it worked very well. THe structure was straight up and down and indeed, Howard said he wouldn't have approved of the venture if it wasn't by term. I have tried to emulate this structure (although, the Howard Government article has more opportunity to develop this structure fully. And, the article itself was in a bad state - some of the PM info was chronological, the rest was forced awkwardly in themes.

So, in summary - it's still by themes (I'd argue more so now with more themes developed) but these themes are within a by-term order. And, I didn't remove stuff in that change. And, it's not my end to changes to the article - but it is an important line drawn in the sand. I've tied to be very gentle in my approach and tried to cater to sensitivities over this article, and hopefully I've explained myself well enough (and I hope the changes speak for themselves). Rather than a quick revert, I hope people can mull over the new look, and/or ask questions, or help me tweak it - I'm not saying it's perfect, yet. --Merbabu (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the changes as made are a significant step towards where we need to be with this article. Agreed that chronology is the way to move with this. Good work! Orderinchaos 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support a restructure. Now there is a line under the Howard govt, it is a good time to get some real quality into this article, and establish some sort of narrative. Hybrid chrono/topic sounds like a good way to proceed. --Surturz (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

nice to see your agreement but did u miss the fact that I have actually already done it? Yeah - hybrid chrono/thematic with chrono taking priority is a good way to put it. --Merbabu (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I did notice :-) Wasn't sure if you'd finished though. --Surturz (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Surturz, for me, the restructure is largely complete – perhaps there is some tinkering to do, ie, I can see now a few places where the old wording/syntax doesn’t quite fit/flow. However, I still want to continue with research and more changes similar to what I’ve been doing of late.

ie, I really think there is room to trim some sections. Ie, that Iraq and opinion polling section. Don’t you think that quality of wording, rather than quantity is better at making a point? Better to be smoother and less wordy, rather than the current somewhat pointy and tedious. What really is the main point that is pertinent to Howard? Suggest that war was undoubtedly unpopular when first proposed, then (some?) polling suggests it was less unpopular at the time of invasion, yet then it was undoubtedly unpopular again afterwards. Can’t we just say it was generally unpopular and maybe put the polls into the footnotes – even Howard himself said it was unpopular. Also, the discussion of Latham and Crean. Do we need all that? Or is there a more pertinent point to Howard that can be said more succinctly? These are just two examples.

And it’s not just readability – the trimming will also make room for a few more points that are likely to be raised in the future.

PS, what about the heading sample in my user space? (link above). I like the idea in principle, but the implementation seems to just bring out the problems I was trying to solve with the restructure. --Merbabu (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Support YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Returning to this article after some time, I see distinct improvement in structure and topic inclusion, will peruse again for suggestions - thanks Merabu Observoz (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed pic

File:CBHSCricket1950s.jpg

Canterbury Boys' High School Cricket Team. John Howard is in the front row, 2nd from right

Good pic. However, there is a very larg text box down the right side, and a narrow pic on the left. This picture was placed into the relevant text near details of Howard's schooling.

The problem is that when the text box is long, it pushes any picture below it down the page, taking the subsequent text with it. If your screen is very narrow, then the body of text in the article extends further and there is no apparent problem. However, on my wide screen there is a gap in the middle of the section that is two inches deep. This is not acceptable formatting. It is a problem frequently created by the insertion of, or adding material to long text boxes. (I hate them!)

I tried moving the pic left but it's a messy solution, so I have removed it. Amandajm (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the problem of the info box. They are often tedious. I think it would be a great shame to lose that pic and would rather have the info box culled. I too have that problem with layout on different computers (and in other articles – Indonesia for one). --Merbabu (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the relevent and interesting picture for uninteresting talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.141.119 (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Howard on Hanson

"Howard's initial silence concerning the immigration views of Pauline Hanson—a disendorsed Liberal Party candidate and independent MP—was widely criticised in the press as an endorsement of Hanson's views.[50] Howard said that she was entitled to express her opinion, that many others would share it,[51] and that to denounce her would "elevate it". Howard repudiated her views seven months after Hanson's controversial maiden parliamentary speech.[50]"

I'm no fan of Howard's handling of Hanson, but is that summary (taken from "The Howard Years") really fair? I distinctly remember parliament passing a motion condemning Hanson's policies - I've got a reference in a personal email from early November 1996 but I can't find a ref. Can someone help? Or was it just seen as not a strong enough reaction? (I certainly remember it much more clearly than the 1997 speech). Peter Ballard (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Labor did try to paint Howard as racist. No, Howard was not. Under Howard, immigration (quietly) reached record levels - even asian immigration.[1][2] I think immigration was only ever reduced in Howard's first term. --Surturz (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, you did add "widely criticized" - which i think *is* unfair and weaselly. Better would have been to keep it as "His critics said/felt/etc...". Now the question is how wide is "wide" and we get this drilling down and expansion on who was his critics.

Also, that immigration increased doesn't mean that the Howard-Hanson controversy didn't happen. And because immigration increased under the Howard Govt doesn't mean that Howard was a racist and it doesn't mean he wasn't. In fact, immigration per se wasn't really connected - not like it was in later years with asylum seekers, citizen test, THe Hanson-Howard controversy was a big issue in the first term regardless of immigration - to make the connection is synthesis.

Also, because Parliament passed the motion, doesn't mean that Howard himself agreed - indeed, many people within the Lib party weren't happy with his action (or lack of).

In summary, the Howard-Hanson thing was big news and dragged on for a while. I felt I'd represented both sides fairly. It doesn't matter if we here think he was racist or not, the point is there was a controversy over it that lasted for months (years?), and it should be represented here as one of the 3 or 4 defining aspects of his first term. Yes, my wording was vague (his critics...) but it was certainly neutral. Indeed, keeping it vague was an advantage, because now we are going to argue and twist the prose around into all sorts of details about who actually said it. It's going to be worse than the contract law prose about the Iraq war opinion polls. --Merbabu (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's OK to remove "widely" if you want - I was remembering the very wide criticism, but I had a blind spot, forgetting it was largely of Hanson (duh!) not Howard. And I agree with that immigration numbers is a separate issue (have they ever decreased under any recent PM?). BTW The Howard Years transcripts are up on the ABC web site and look look like a pretty good resource. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I'm going to back it up further with more resources - then propose new wording. The fact I didn't provide enough references was in retrospect a problem. Yes, I tried to sum up a lot in a few sentences (and will continue to do so), but I really though i gave both sides a good balanced hearing ie, "his critics..." combined with "Howard's response was..." but much of that has been changed around today. I certainly didn't intend to paint him as "suspect on race" or not suspect. It was just a big issue focussed on Howard more than the govt. But, as you seem to have been around and politically aware at the time, you seem to have some sense of the times. I remember very clearly sitting relieved on my verandah in Semarang reading about Howard's "repudiation" on the front page of The Jakarta Post, and discussing it with curious neighours who had read it in Kompas. As for Howard Years transcripts, i tried not to quote the refs on this page and Howard Govt, but it provided me with a number of good ideas and sanity checks. Sprung! --Merbabu (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't mean to go off topic (ahem), but ref #38 is highly suspect. I recall the book covered the Australian League of Rights well, because I was involved with the CEC at the time, but otherwise was as unfair as Macintyre's Introduction to the Culture Wars—basically a 300 page rant about how none of the Liberal "elites" have actually "studied" history. Ottre 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Merbabu's analysis is completely off-kilter. Who said anything about removing the section? Of course it was a big deal at the time. These straw man arguments are quite awful, Merbabu. "Widely criticised in the press" is supported by the refs and not weaselly. "Howard's critics say..." is CLEARLY weaselly. What critics? "Howard's critics" is not a well-defined group at all. There may well have been critics of Howard that said he didn't support Hanson enough! It is fairly well known now that Howard's strategy was to attempt to starve Hanson of publicity. This strategy failed, probably because the Liberal wets couldn't keep quiet about her. The reference even states that the Asian press were hostile to Howard on this issue, and Merbabu is basing his/her views on that! Ballard's text is much better than the original "denounce"-filled version. If we are going to talk about 'sense of the times' we must remember that the ALP at that stage was somewhat electorally beholden to ethnic groups who favoured family reunion over skills-based immigration, also that Keating et al tended to branded anyone who suggested a reduction in immigration as 'racist'. The real issues were skills vs family reunion, and integration vs multiculturalism. The asian immigration/race stuff was the 6 o'clock news version of the debate. --Surturz (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Surturz, now you are acknowledging an issue was notable and verifiable, thus isn't it a little tendentious to argue over the wording "Howard's critics...". Either you are arguing it's notable and one of the major points of his first term, or you are saying there actually wasn't much criticism. Which one is it? If it was the former, then you show some common sense and stop nit picking, but if you think it is the latter (ie, not notable), then you had better prove the references incorrect. As for the word "denounce" it is no longer in the text and no-one argued with the change so why are you still bringing it up here and on my user page?--Merbabu (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm bringing it up because you claimed the addition of 'eventually' was POV, but ignored the existence of the word "denounce" which is clearly much more emotive. I am not being inconsistent, tendentious or nit-picking as you claim, "Howard's critics" is clearly WP:WEASEL and you should not be defending the term. We should say who was criticising him - the press, or the Labor party, or an ethnic lobby, whoever - and we shouldn't be asserting that it is coupled with his Asian immigration statements unless it is WP:V. And stop trying to infer that I don't think the item should be in the article, I have never thought that nor ever tried to delete the text. I have already asked you not to use straw man arguments. --Surturz (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - i still maintain that "eventually denounced/repudiated" is a judgement. Futher, it is not necessary as the actual time frame (ie, a fact rather than judgement) is there. I've also said a few times on my talk page that I cannot explain it to you any clearer. If it is so innocuous, then why do you insist on it? As for the word "denounce", please refer to my post above. There were many more than just the press criticising. So, I ask you how wide is "widely criticised". "His critics" (because they were criticizing him as you are one of mine on this point -it's not rocket science) is much more succinct and is less weasally than "widely". By using "his critics" I'm trying to avoid the mess that is the Iraq war section which you insist on having. --Merbabu (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Postnominals

We have AC in the lede, but AC SSI LLB in the infobox. Two issues:

• LLB is the sort of postnom that's normally used only in educational contexts. It represents an educational achievement, not an honour or award. So I'd prefer it if it weren't mentioned at all.
• If we use SSI, we should have it in both places. He may not use it on whatever his letterhead is these days, but he's entitled to do so if he wants. Therefore it's appropriate for us to use it; therefore the lede should be "John Howard AC SSI", as should the infobox. Any comments before I change it? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

University of Sydney style guide indicates that awards, educational qualifications and parliamentary designations should be interspersed. I think it informative to have all postnominals that Howard is entitled to use, whether or not he actually uses them. This article is not his business card, we should be complete. --Surturz (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Re the LL.B. - it is correct to only have it in the infobox but not in the lead. Orderinchaos 02:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

@ Surturz: Of course a university style guide will promote the use of educational postnoms, because they're relevant to that context. Style guides designed for general use do not.

@ Orderinchaos: Where are the WP rules about what goes where? And why are they different? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Which style guide should we use, if not the Sydney University one? Which "style guide for general use" are you using? Do you have some evidence that the Sydney University style guide is prejudiced and not WP:RS? Why on earth would civil awards extinguish educational post noms? --Surturz (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In answer to the question which Style Guide should you be using if not the Sydney University one, you should be using Wikipedia's Style Guide for Wikipedia articles. You might find this section helpful for dealing with educational postnoms - Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Post-nominal_initials. HTH. Sarah 01:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The WP style guide seems to support education postnoms (where "issued by a country or organization with which the subject has been closely associated"), but doesn't explain why, for example, Gough Whitlam is shown as "Gough Whitlam AC QC", and not "Gough Whitlam AC QC LLB". And many other cases where people had bachelors, masters or doctoral degrees but their educational postnoms are not shown. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah. That's helpful, however, the MOS does not actually say anything about precedence, or absorption. It assumes the editor is familiar with the usage of honorifics, which we aren't. So I reckon the Syd Uni style guide still has a part to play. For Gough Whitlam, I would assume that QC encapsulates LLB (since you can't be a QC without a law degree). This also implies Howard's LLB should go into the article; if we mention Whitlam's legal qualifications, why shouldn't we also mention Howard's? --Surturz (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph implies the opening sentence should be "The Rt Hon John Howard.." (no post-nominals). This supports Orderinchaos, above. --Surturz (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Except that he ain't "The Rt Hon", just "The Hon". Remember the Australia Act 1986? Australians don't get appointed to the UK Privy Council any more. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

QC and LLB are still separate postnoms. If Gough were granted an honorary doctorate of laws, he'd be referred to by the uni in question as "... AC QC LLB", because LLB would be appropriate and relevant in that context. You never see it in any other context. I’ve found something interesting about foreign awards, here. That suggests that Peter Cosgrove is a CNZM, but only uses that postnom in NZ contexts. By that reasoning, Howard would not have SSI except in a Solomon Islands context. It should be mentioned in the text, but should not appear with his name in either the lede or the infobox. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, see the lists of names at the front of Hansard (here's yesterday's Reps) - you'll see AOs, AMs, QCs and SCs mentioned, and lots of MPs, but no educational quals. Does this mean that none of our reps have ever been to uni? Certainly not. My issue with including LLBs and all the rest is that, to be consistent, there would be literally thousands of articles that would need changing. It seems to be well accepted practice that they are not used except in the contexts to which they're relevant. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The other distinction between LLB and QC/SC is that LLB is granted by an educational institution, whereas QC/SC is granted by the state. It's not an offence, in itself, for Joe Bloggs to claim he has an LLB when he doesn't, but it is an offence to put QC/SC after your name if you haven't been given that honour by the state. Same applies for AC, KBE, KCMG, CH and similar state-awarded honours. The fact that you can't became a QC unless you're highly legally qualified and experienced does not make QC a legal qualification. It's an award, not a qualification. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to be corrected on QC/LLB - I was hypothesizing. I'm also happy to be corrected on "The Rt Hon" (for some reason I thought PMs got the "Rt"). I agree SSI is a little dubious. The real issue is whether we want to be complete, or whether we want to reflect common usage. I say complete is better, because WP is an encyclopedia and not everyone knows that Howard has an LLB. It is more informative. --Surturz (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to let people know that he has an LLB, if you think that's something worth mentioning. We can do that in the text. I've read hundreds of articles where reference is made to the person's studies; what they studied is mentioned (e.g. law, engineering, science), and also where they did it (e.g. University of Sydney; or sometimes just the name of the city, unless it's really important to specify Uni of Sydney vs. Uni of NSW vs. Macquarie vs ...). But, generally speaking, the precise name of the qualification does not merit a mention, and it certainly doesn't merit a postnominal. It's enough to know that Howard studied law at wherever. By all means provide details, but beware of turning articles into resumes.

Just on the Rt Hon thing, it used to be the case that PMs were automatically invited to join the Privy Council (and some other people - see Right Honourable#Australia for the surviving ones). The majority accepted. Whitlam declined. Fraser accepted, but he was the last one, and there won't be any more. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be The Hon. John Howard AC SSI and under it in smaller letters LLB (USyd) DUniv (Bond) and so on and so forth. The postnomial, unless you're specifically looking at education shouldn't be in that first line as part of the AC etc part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skoido (talk • contribs) 10:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring over Howard's response to Hanson

Care to explain why all my attempts to improve our coverage of the above have been reverted, without reason? The current wording is hardly biased as it is taken from the popular Review of the Reviewers column, and Matchett's interpretation has been supported (most recently echoed by a Dr. Kathleen Weekley) several times over the past five years in the left-wing Overland. I'm sure the book itself provides a more balanced view of Howard's comments regarding Hanson than the ABC news article does.

I don't accept the argument that it adds nothing to context, because the entire paragraph should be structured around the political culture of the time and (particularly) cynics within the Liberal Party. Dissatisfaction with party politics was a major influence on voting patterns in the 1998 election.

Moreover, I don't know if the editors involved are treating this separately from earlier contributions. In hindsight, my first edit was n't useful at all, but that's no reason for Merbabu to completely ignore me when I asked him to discuss how four pages of Andrew Markus prove definitively that the One Australia policy "opposed multiculturalism", and OIC to remove another perfectly valid source. Ottre 19:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

While, to be honest, I personally don't think your latest contributions in this area were necessary, I agree with you that it is poor form for other editors to simply revert your changes with no discussion on this page. Particularly hypocritical is Merbabu's rebuke to use the talk page, when not doing so his/herself. As for your specific complaints:

• changing the reference you added does not seem to be necessary - the text is already referenced adequately with 'The End of Certainty' by Kelly.
• Assuming the Goot reference is an WP:RS, this 'context' sentence would be better in the Howard Government article, since this is a biography article and the sentence is not particularly about John Howard.

By the way, when you sign talk page contributions, you can use four tildes to automatically provide links to your personal pages as explained here. Apologies if you already know this and are intentionally signing a different way. --Surturz (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The addition is a non-notable opinion. Indeed you will notice that there aren't many opinions here in the article. Why should this one go in instead of 100s (1000's???) of others. There are many more notable opinions that dont get included what's special about this one? It is poorly worded, incomprehensible (what does it mean?) and adding a reference to an opinion doesn't make it either neutral or relevant. It's an esoteric tangential addition that doesn't fit in a fact-based encyclopedia. It would great for a first year political science essay contrasting political appeal within the electorate. Also, could you please sort out your signature--Merbabu (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You do realise Goot is a published political scientist? There is no more reliable source available on Howard reverting to his old form RE cynicism. Ottre 22:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A published political scientist is the criteria for inclusion of an opinion? We would have a one very long article then. And don't alter other people's comments.[3] Apart from being against wikipedia policy it is not a great way to win friends or more importantly to influence people. As I said, you seem to misunderstand some wikipedia basics. --Merbabu (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

How nice of you to say. In this article from a decade later he is quoted as saying "I followed Pauline Hanson quite closely", which makes his review notable enough among political scientists. You are right that it should be double-checked for inclusion. Ottre 11:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Howard dragging his feet on Campbell Enquiry

Timeshift added, and Lester re-added, text quoting an opinion piece in The Australian claiming that Howard "dragged his feet" on the Campbell enquiry. The admin User:Orderinchaos has previously indicated (click here) that opinion pieces, even if they are on the front page of a quality newspaper, cannot be used to insert commentary into articles. While I disagree with Orderinchaos' ruling, I think all editors should abide by it, to avoid double standards. --Surturz (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It largely depends on who wrote the piece and the tone of the article. But the article in question[4] is clearly an opinion piece attacking Howard, and I believe the author (Michael Costello) is a former Keating staffer. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The offending edit is here. I actually reworded Timeshift's text, before Surturz deleted it. You could argue about whether or not the text is good or bad, but it doesn't break any rules regarding reliable sources.--Lester 00:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Surturz is comparing chalk and cheese with the OIC example and my example. My edit is very straight forward and isn't OR-SYN'y, simply stating the truth, that Howard dragged his feet on the Campbell enquiry, however in that example, you're taking a complete opinion and is very OR-SYN'y. The article in question, though by a Keating staffer, uses facts to establish that Howard very much overstretches his economic legacy. Even Malcolm Fraser agrees. Not a single cabinet submission. Read the article. But I don't care enough to have a long discussion over this, leave it out, let the readers think Howard pushed Fraser for neoliberal economic reforms. Let the pro-Howard article stay. It's not as if anyone reads up on Howard anymore anyway. Timeshift (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

can we take Fraser as a reliable non-partisan opinion on Howard's treasurership? --Merbabu (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we should only include positive, not negative views on Howard? Fraser is a former Liberal PM! Read the article in it's entirety. This bit is telling: "Fraser points out that Howard cannot produce a single cabinet submission in which Howard proposed any measure to open up and modernise the Australian economy that was knocked back. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Fraser's word has to be accepted." Timeshift (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked up the Campbell Report in The End of Certainty by Kelly, which I think several of us have used as a WP:RS. This is an excerpt (p78):

But the challenge for the government was immense since the treasury opposed the report's core and the Reserve Bank was equivocal.

Howard decided on a 'bit by bit' approach to Cabinet for fear of seeing the entire Campbell Report lost. Fraser had a farmer's suspicion of banks and in Visbord's view 'his opposition to deregulation was to moves that could have given the banks more influence, more freedom, more power'. The dominant Fraser-National Party Cabinet axis wanted to keep controls on bank lending rates, where Howard favoured the principle of deregulation. Howard was unable to overcome his two chief opponents, his own leader Fraser and his chief adviser, treasury secretary John Stone. Howard never asked Cabinet to float the exchange rate because he knew the Fraser-Anthony axis would kill any such submission.

This seems to contradict Timeshift's article on Howard's motive. The facts are the same - Campbell report was not pushed in Cabinet by Howard - but given widespread antipathy to (at the time) revolutionary economic ideas, I think it is reasonable to assume that Howard was cautious, rather than himself an opponent of the report.

I would argue Kelly is more reliable source since he wasn't a Labor staffer writing in the middle of an election campaign. Can we we can say something like "In proposing the reforms detailed in the Campbell report, Howard adopted an incremental approach to Cabinet, as there was wide opposition to deregulation within the government and the treasury"?--Surturz (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm "timeshort" today. ;-) Will consider and comment on issue over the weekend. Be nice everyone. Issues not editors. Collaboration not sarcasm. Compromise not trenches. Ponder the other opinion rather than wear ear muffs. --Merbabu (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Read the existing reference from the article (Link). Howard's stance on banking deregulation is different to his stance on other financial deregulation, and is different to his stance on the Campbell enquiry. Howard didn't want the enquiry to proceed.Lester 22:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Lester, I couldn't see anything in the ref you indicated that Howard didn't want the enquiry to proceed. Which page should I be looking at? --Surturz (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, me and Surturz agreeing on something :) I am a firm believer in using only reliable sources for controversial assertions, and suggesting that a serving Prime Minister deliberately delayed something for political reasons (while it might well be the case, but could have other explanations) is what I would consider a fairly strong allegation to make. Depending on context, it may be possible to state that such allegations were made by others, and cite those. But it depends on whether those claims were sufficiently publicised (i.e. we're not becoming the main source for the info). Orderinchaos 00:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

He was actually treasurer at the time, and a long way from having the political clout that he would later obtain. The issue is not whether Howard failed to push the Campbell report hard in Cabinet (we all agree he didn't push the Campbell report hard in Cabinet as Treasurer). Timeshift9's poor quality reference implies that Howard could have implemented the reforms but didn't because he didn't believe in them. My RS reference asserts that Howard was a strong believer in the reforms espoused in the Campbell report, but didn't force them through because of the simple facts that Prime Minister Fraser didn't support them, Howard's own department didn't support them, and Howard knew he wouldn't be able to get Cabinet to agree to them. An independent reserve bank, floating exchange rate, etc are all the orthodox philosophies now, but at the time were revolutionary. --Surturz (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

First, it's really not necessary to accuse another editor of adding "poor quality" references. If you don't like the references, talk about the references, without linking "poor quality" to another Wikipedian. Second, the replacement reference "Kelly (1994), pp. 78." is not online, and doesn't give enough information to find it. As it stands, that reference can't be used. Third, the Treasury (which at the time was run by Howard) was against instigating the Campbell Committee, as stated by the reference by author Bell (which is online). Yet you added text to say that Howard was in favour it. Whether Howard, in later years, agreed with the floating of the dollar is a different issue. The fact remains that Treasury didn't want the Campbell Committee to go ahead.--Lester 20:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

only online references can be used? I am not aware of this policy. --Merbabu (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have already quoted, verbatim, the text of my reference above. I have put the full reference into the article for User:Lester's benefit. I am not maligning Timeshift9's character; I am simply stating a fact that the reference he provided is low quality. I am sure there is no WP policy stating that dead tree books cannot be used. IMHO they are usually better quality than online references. --Surturz (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No you didn't, Surturz, and you know very well that when this conversation started there was no meaningful reference. After a tirade of incivility at me (EDIT: Now deleted), telling me I should be embarrassed for not being capable of clicking on your wonderful reference, you later went back and slipped in the reference (diff) details which later made it clickable. Your little schemed attempting to make others look foolish has failed, and is now revealed for all to see.--Lester 11:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Grow up guys. I'm sure everyone cares as little as me as to who started it. Just comment on the edits/issues at hand. Just as well I haven't looked into it in any detail. But, it seems the norm - two extreme POV's battling out that once again the middle non-controversial ground is booted out. If this is balance, then it's not good. We need neutrality and middle ground, not a balance of POV's. --Merbabu (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"two extreme POV's", yes, thanks, Merbabu. Throw some petrol into the mix.--Lester 12:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, two very opposite POV's. Why can't people just write factual stuff they know won't be controversial. Middle of the road stuff. The new section's a mess, as is the Iraq section with the tedious quoting of this poll said this, but that poll said that, etc, etc. That's all I ask - just info. Why don't you try it? --Merbabu (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This crazy discussion started when a section of referenced text was deleted shortly after it was added. I didn't add it the first time round, but I re-added it purely because there was no discussion at the time, and no valid reason given for its deletion. I want people to initiate a discussion at the time any referenced content is deleted. If there's something else I added that's POV or non-factual, then it would help more if you were specific about what it was. I had nothing to do with Iraq content you mention.Lester 13:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Look Lester, I apologise for the rant, which made incorrect accusations and which I did revert. However, I can't understand why you don't think I added the verbatim text above when it is still there. Here is a diff in any case. I did subsequently fix the reference to meet your concerns, even though the existing referencing ("Kelly (1994) p78") matches WP policy for repeated references (see Wikipedia:Ref#Shortened_footnotes). The issue is, perhaps, that the original reference did not come first. It would have been more helpful if you had simply fixed my referencing in the article, rather than trying to score points. Since you have been involved in the discussion, you must have already seen my verbatim quote, above, and must have known what book I was quoting.

It might be a losing strategy to appeal to common sense, but consider the following points:

• End of Certainty was written in 1992 and revised in 1994, well before Howard returned to the leadership of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. A constant theme is how Howard and Hewson's radical (at the time) economic beliefs pushed the Liberal party into economic rationalism, away from 'Fraserism'.
• Future Directions presaged a lot of his policy as PM, and was released for the 1988 election. --Surturz (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• He introduced the GST, a known election loser for the coalition. Common sense would tell you that a dilletante does not do something like that. It is a reasonable assertion that Howard developed his economic theories while he was Fraser's treasurer, and then implemented those theories when he became PM.

Considering all this, if we are going to try to imply that Howard stole Keating's ideas, we are going to need a lot more evidence than an attack piece written by a Keating staffer during an election campaign. Do you honestly believe that Howard came to the economic rationalist party late in his political career?

The ludicrous thing about this argument is that we essentially agree. Of course Hawke/Keating floated the dollar, deregulated banks etc. These are easily verifiable. But to assert that Treasurer Howard (as opposed to the Treasury) didn't believe in these policies is ludicrous. Not even Timeshift9's original reference by Michael Costello says that. --Surturz (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

International relations (Yodoyono/China/Clinton/Blair

1) The paragraph on East Timor and 1999 rightly refers to strained relations with Indonesia. I think, for completeness, the article has to also note that the relationship was subsequently repaired to the point where President Yodoyono would describe it as being at the highest point in the history of the two nations (I know a citation is available somewhere for this). Howard's prompt and supportive actions in the aftermath of the Tsunami were partly the cause of this and a warm bond developed between the leaders. The billion dollar aid package is perhaps the most significant of the remaining Howard policy omissions of the existing article?

2) Howard's position on China could be a good inclusion too: a steady expansion of the economic relationship was nurtured throughout Howard's reign which I believe he personally sights as his chief foreign policy accomplishment.

3) Also should the point be made that Howard lobbied hard for (an initially reluctant) Bill Clinton to support E. Timor action, as this is a significant point in the history of Howard's management of US relations? "We have supported you in every conflict and now we need your help" (from memory this was Howard's account in ABC's Howard Years.

4) Tony Blair and Howard had the closest relationship of Aust-British PMs in living memory. Should reference to this be made? Blair speaks of Howard as having had a rare clarity of intellect and strength of purpose as a leader (see ABC's extended Howard Years interview with Blair). He also recalls Howard's response to the 2005 London bombings as the greatest exposition by any leader of "what we are fighting for": that exposition can be found at http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=710702n

None of these points need be long 17:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your comments. I think there are some excellent points. A general comment is that some of these might be better placed in Howard Government. The Asian relationships are interesting. For someone (and a government) that was so heavily pilloried in its early years (and in many cases rightly), towards the end it had achieved some very impressive results. Specifically:

1) I had intended to include Howard's relationship with SBY (Yudhoyono) or more broadly with Indonesia. You are right - it certainly did bounce back after East TImor with the Bali Bombing cooperation and the tsunami efforts. Indeed, SBY and Howard developed a close personal relationship, but mentioning that didn't seem to be as popular on this page as was emphasizing Howard's relationship with Bush.

2) Certainly the China economic relations were very important and the government did a lot to foster that. However, is this something for this article or Howard Government? There's been two criteria for deciding what goes in here: it was a big event for the term, and Howard had a major role in it. Hence we end up with East TImor, Iraq, GST, Workchoices, Republic debate, Port Arthur, Wik, Economy, - all the really big stand out issues. I think we ended up with about 1/2 dozen issues per term which is good I think. Perhaps, we need to include the China exports boom in the economy. Just 1/2 a sentence as you allude to.

3) Howard did a lot of lobbying to get INTERFET off the ground - from memory he was actually at an APEC summit at the time, and indeed, he depended on Clinton's response and influence. It's kind of mentioned in the the sentence that starts "In September 1999, " but maybe it can be more specific - I suggest not adding to the word count though.

4) Not so sure about this one. Perhaps a mention of Blair where we mention his relationship with Bush.

I might go ahead and see if I can address some of these in the article. --Merbabu (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we are largely on the same page - although I still think reference to the closeness to British PM is worth noting, especially for international readers. I think the "Bush's buddy" analysis needs inclusion of course, but Britain, Indonesia, Chinese government relations each also reached historic highs over Howard's reign (as well as historic lows in the case of Indonesia). In his later years as PM Howard was high in his praise of Indonesia's democratic transformation choosing his addresses to the Irish and Canadian Parliaments to promote Indonesia's reform record. President Hu of China also chose Australia as the first foreign country to visit and was the first Chinese leader to address the Australian Parliament (at Howard's invitation). Howard was also a fan of boosting India's profile, so was prepared to sell Uranium to them and supported the linking up of the democracies of Asia in a military alliance (a policy scrapped by Rudd as "overly ideological"). These things are significant to the Howard-the-man article because of the Central allegation against Howard by Keating in the 1990s that "Howard wouldn't be able to deal with Asia", and the references already made to Howard's comments about immigration in the 1980s. Observoz (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Xa-xa. The most salient point? For the first two years in Iraq, the ADF had the worst terms of engagement of any coalition force because Howard didn't move close enough to Blair. Ottre 10:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Process of reform

{{editsemiprotected}} Should the comment "The process of reform began before the committee reported 2½ years later" be changed to "The process of reform began before the committee reported two and a half years later," The comment in found in the "Federal Treasurer" section, paragraph two I would change it myself, but i can't, if i am mistaken sorry... Ivey.eli (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Public Regard"?

That poll of 1000 people is an extremely poor source for information on how Howard is held in the "public regard". If that's the best example you can find, it shouldn't be there. Garth M (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm - i think removal was good. It kinda seemed notable at the time - or at least it could have been reasonably argued at the time as notable, but really, it's nothing compared to the rest of the items in the article. --Merbabu (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --Surturz (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Award

{{editsemiprotect}} under Honours, add the fact he won the Australian Father of the Year award in 1997. 211.30.125.63 (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Welcome and thanks for contributing. Celestra (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)