Talk:John Howard

---

Archive 1 Archive 2 (Jan 06 to June 06) Archive 3 (June 06 to Dec 06)

I heard this rumor...

A few days ago I heard a rumor that: "John Howard suffered a heart attack and is fighting for his life in Hospitable" is there any truth in this rumor? Shadoom1 06:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If it were true there would be saturation coverage. It's an email virus Kewpid 08:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that Shadoom1 09:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Climate Change ...

"A talk given on 20 February 2006 by Clive Hamilton, the director of the Australia Institute, described the Howard as being influenced by the "dirty dozen", a group of climate change skeptics with considerable influence over Australian policy [43]"

This is the John Howard entry, not the Clive Hamilton entry. His opinion shouldn't be sited on this page any more than any other individual. It is not relevent. This should be deleted and placed perhaps on the Clive Hamilton page. Mish 130 13:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Interesting

An editor added a direct quote, with Howard apparently saying, "interest rates would remain lower under a Coalition government". I haven't made an exhaustive search, but I can't find a source for this exact wording, which seems rather misleading. Howard's pledge was that the Coalition would keep rates lower than the ALP would, not that rates would become lower. --Pete 08:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that's misleading... saying that interest rates would remain lower under a Coalition govt means exactly what you're saying it means. That sentence doesn't say anywhere that rates would become lower. Becoming lower and remaining lower (under a coalition govt) are different things. Timeshift 08:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The key point is the comparison with Labor. That was the message Howard succeeded in getting across. Our version seems to be missing this, and I doubt Howard used those exact words anyway. --Pete

I happen to agree. I doubt we'll find a citation, so I think removal is the best option. Sid 15:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

John Howard's actual election pledge was: Liberal Party-keeping interest rates low. User:Dezza91

Glad to see that an accurate quote was found. However, it needs the context of a comparison with Labor, otherwise a reader might think that interest rates were promised to be lower (i.e. go down) under a Coalition government. --Jumbo 00:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Accurate quote? No source is given. The actual quote from Mr Howard is "I tell you something that is not hypothetical: interest rates will always be lower under the Coalition than under the Labor Party, that is a proven fact." A reference for this is a Daily Telegraph story by Scott Murdoch (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20675107-5001024,00.html). This may also explain the origin of the original statement since the first paragraph of the story reads: "PRIME Minister John Howard has reiterated his pledge that interest rates would remain lower under a Coalition government than the peaks reached under Labor." A comparison directly relevant to the ability of households to pay for housing would involve measures of housing affordability, rather than interest rates. Current data show that housing affordability in Australia is at an all-time high (see, for example, http://www.housingsummit.org.au/media/BP5c.pdf). AussieBoy 04:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Widely regarded as the best PM in Australian history?

Whether you're a fan of Howard or not, you cant deny that he's been somewhat decisive - any proof, sources, evidence?

Someone can be decisively abhominable. What exactly do you mean - do you want the article to state that he has been considered as such? In which case, it's your obligation to find a source. Slac speak up! 04:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Somewhat decisive"? This is a legpull. My choice would be Deakin, but we're never going to have a single definitive answer. Find a source saying John Howard's the best in our history and I'll find an equally authoratitive one saying he's the worst. --Pete 10:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

decisive'? You mean like the way he decisively decided to bullshit the Australian people about people throwing babies overboard? Sorry couldn't resist. Nil Einne 17:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

It seems I'm not the only one who doesn't find this article very neutral... Lots of it is against Howard, and a significant portion of it is for him. Now, I'm afraid this may sound neutral, as it "evens out", but that doesn't constitute a NPoV. Sid 15:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide explicit detail for your NPOV complaint or the tag will be removed. --cj | talk 16:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps User:HexenX could use the neutrality tags on only the sections he finds to be POV. Joestella 06:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The page Wikipedia:NPOV dispute#How to initiate an NPOV debate says in part:

"Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled 'NPOV dispute...'. Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why."

Since this procedure has not been followed (i.e. no "NPOV dispute" section, no specific reasons given, no suggestions offered), I'm going to delete the tag. Rocksong 11:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is far from neutral. The entire article looks like it was written by the media arm of the Liberal Party. There a lot of misinformation and selective editing of facts. This is not Encyclopedic content - its Liberal Party propaganda. (I refer in particular to the last 2 sections). ozzy_marco 12 February 2007

There is a difference between disturbing the neutral point of view and only claiming facts. For example, the current revision states that the passengers aboard Tampa threw their children overboard to force the Navy to assist them when it was long ago established this was not the case. This would be an example of the Liberal Party propaganda. However, if you were to say that Howard claimed the children were thrown overboard then subsequently proven wrong, although this reflects poorly on Howard, it is merely the statement of fact and so can't be said to spoil a neutral point of view.Vision Insider 04:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A major change?

The previous version read, "A major change in Howard's political fortunes occurred in August and September 2001, when the government refused permission for the Norwegian freighter MV Tampa..."

This is Original Research. Regardless of whether his polls improved (and the cite given doesn't give any details), we cannot say that this was a major change. We need to find an authoritative source who says this. A major change in John Howard's fortunes would be something like losing the 1987 election in the Joh-for-PM craze, or being elected Liberal leader again. Merely overcoming bad polls is hardly anything new for John Howard - he's always come from behind in mid-term to win the election. --Pete 11:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Need a source saying this was a major change? Bah, too easy.

Rod Cameron, ALP Pollster, speaking on PM: "That's why John Howard won, because there was a huge shift following the Tampa" PM, 1-Jun-2004

Mark Colvin, ABC Reporter: "Today's opinion polls have brought about one of those sea changes in the political mood that occasionally strike Canberra, and the conventional wisdom from predicting a certain Labor victory is now running in favour of a third term for John Howard." PM 4-Sep-2001

Antony Green: "The re-election of the Howard government at the November 2001 was remarkable given its electoral problems earlier in the year. The government had fallen into an electoral hole (or dug itself into one according to some), by mid-March 2001

trailing Labor's primary vote by 13 percent according to Newspoll... However, the big turning point came when the Norwegian container ship the Tampa and its rescued cargo of asylum seekers hove into view off Christmas Island." Antony Green's Election Summary

Shaun Carney, The Age: "A few days later, the first post-Tampa opinion polls were published. They registered a massive, unprecedented swing to the Coalition. Pollster Gary Morgan found them so extraordinary, he went out and re-interviewed, only to get the same results. The election had already been fought and won by the Government, 2 months before the actual polling day." The Age, 11-Sep-2004

Where's your reference saying it wasn't a major change? Rocksong 11:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't need a reference for events that didn't happen.

The point isn't that the Howard's skilful management of the Tampa affair lifted his polls. The objection is that the Tampa is claimed to be "a major change in Howard's political fortunes". We don't have a cite for that. Not unless we engage in interpretation which belongs in the realm of Original Research.

You need to show that Howard would certainly have lost the 2001 election and the Tampa was the sole factor in his winning it. You cannot do that. I suggest that we look for an alternative wording. --Pete 23:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said he would've lost otherwise, nor does the article. What the article says is that Tampa was a major change, and a major change in his favour. The sources above say that too. By my count, I'm up to 2 reverts and you're up to 3, so I could revert and claim the 3RR. But I'd rather we both bowed out for now and let others contribute. What do others say? Rocksong 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It was not a change in his political fortunes, let alone a major change. It would be a major change if he had lost the election, but the effect is that he won a third election, which is just more of the same, not even a minor change.

The implication of the "major change" wording is that Howard would definitely have lost the 2001 election and that Tampa alone gave him the victory. In an encyclopaedia, that is speculation and we should not countenance it.

I welcome the participation of other editors, but I feel that it is important that you understand the point being made. In biographies, especially political biographies, we should not support speculation or sloppy wording. --Pete 01:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

how 'bout 'a shift in howard's political fortunes...' The undertow 01:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Same problem. If every lift or drop in the polls is a shift or a change in political fortunes, then every article on every politician would be full of "major changes". --Pete 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

it seems like this shift was notable enough to spawn several articles. i would think that type of shift to be atypical. The undertow 01:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Those political commentators typically and regularly write articles or make media appearances. In the lead up to an election, Antony Green, the pollsters, and the major daily political journalists will have several media contributions each week. --Pete 01:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

But 3 of the 4 articles quoted above were from 2004, more than 2 years after the election. They are summaries of what happened in 2001. Rocksong 02:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. But it is silly to say that the issue spawned several articles. Using the same measure, we could look at September 11, and say that this was a major change in John Howard's political fortunes. --Pete 07:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not correct to suggest that there would have to be proof that Howard would have definitely lost the election, that is too high a standard. However, various [studies http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/index/2WGCD1B16Y6GMTMR.pdf] of the Australian Election Surveys adequately suggest that the issue created a major swing towards the Coalition especially among otherwise Labor voters. Kewpid 02:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that the Tampa caused a big lift in the polls. But it was hardly a major change in Howard's political fortunes. That's going way too far. Let's stick with the facts, rather than hyperbole. --Pete 07:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is important to say that Tampa was the main reason Howard won the 2001 election, because that's what most, if not all, of the commentators say. I'm happy to attribute to the commentators rather than put it as a bare fact, e.g. "Most commentators agree that the Tampa affair was the decisive issue in the 2001 election." (Then of course give references). Rocksong 10:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Most"? That sounds awfully like a guess to me. And, this being a biography of John Howard, it is even more important to focus on his skilful handling of the incident, rather than have it sound like it just sort of happened along. --Pete 10:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You say "most" is a guess? Well I found (without trying) 3 references, written after the fact, who say it was. Here's a challenge for you: find 3 that say it wasn't. That is, find 3 commentators on the 2001 election, who list what they believe were the decisive factors, who do NOT put Tampa at #1. Rocksong 11:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. Look at all the poll history, Howard was elected in 1996 and since then his popularity kept sliding, eventually in 2001 to a very low rating and had almost no chance for re-election. Then the tampa happened and his popularity shot straight up - and since then, he's mastered the art and discovered the political value of scaremongering. Timeshift 12:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You are falling for what in economics is called Ceteris Paribus fallacy. 3 references from people drawing their own conclusion (without proof) is not fact. Unless you can provide a poll stating that X% people only voted because of the "Tampa" you cannot make that statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.169.6.144 (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

No, but we can (and should) say that nearly all commentators attributed the election win to Tampa, because that can be demonstrated. Rocksong 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. Unless your idea of "nearly all" means "a few". --Pete

Birthdate Reversion

Question: user:Skyring's reversion of the birth date results in a broken info box for me: [[ {{{3}}}]] 26 July 1939 (age Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "[")

is this apparent to anyone else? The undertow 09:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The template is broken. It generates a date in US month-day-year format. As noted, most Wikipedia readers do not have accounts and therefore see the "raw" dates, which in this case turn out to be in the wrong format. --Pete 09:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Easy fix is to ignore the birthdate and age template. Just use birth_date =[[11 March]] [[1916]] or whatever the date is. --Pete 09:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lacrimosus affirmed that 'anons' see the date as messed up, but i found the error when i was logged in...so what does that mean? The undertow 12:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

East Timor

Australia actually led INTERFET (International Force East Timor) (ie didn't just contribute significantly) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.169.6.144 (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Not only that but we led the pressure for its creation. More could be added there. Rocksong 22:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

10 billion versus 96 billion

Anonymous user 58.169.6.144, by continously inserting references to the 96 billion debt in the "budget black hole" paragraph, is confusing two issues. The 96 billion net debt was common knowledge in 1996. But the "budget black hole" comments were in relation to an alleged (it's so long ago I can't remember who was right) 10 billion black hole in Labor's 95-96 budget. The Liberals used this as an excuse/rationale to cut certain spending (I think this was the famous "non-core promises"). I've no idea if the Libs were right, but it's a trick every incoming government seems to play: "Oooooh we've just discovered that the previous government has overspent, we'll have to dump some of our election promises". Now the $96 billion total debt was not in this category: it was common knowledge, so the Libs could account for it in their election promises. Now wiping out the $96 billion debt over 10 years is an impressive achievement and deserves a mention, but not in the same paragraph as the "budget black hole", because it's a separate issue. Rocksong 22:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That should not be removed. It's in the context of the cuts. The cuts were not just because of the $10 billion deficit, it was because of the total debt. The government has spent years paying that off and aluding to it. Whilst the $10 billion deficit in spending was bad, it was the $96 billion that was the main problem that required addressing - and the main reason for the cuts referenced. The cuts would not have been as large if it were only the $10 billion deficit with no further government debt. If the cuts are referenced in such detail in the following sentences / paragraph, the $96 billion reason should also be mentioned. Either place the $96 billion federal debt or remove the reference to the severe cuts afterwards.(my words" severe cuts) Mish_130 13:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Family First preferences

Howard's social conservatism also helped him to win vital preferences from the socially conservative party Family First.

I have removed this claim from the 2004 election campaign section. I don't think Family First's preference flows to the Liberals were decisive in the election at all, given the party's low primary vote. Is there a source on this? It goes without saying that the party's Senate seat has been pretty decisive, but that was not won by "Howard's social conservatism". Joestella 19:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I'm a FF member). The statement is certainly true (Libs got most FF preferences, and it was due to their (on the whole) social conservatism). The question is whether it is relevant. If they were mostly Liberal voters in the first place, then it's no net gain, so probably doesn't deserve a mention. (To answer this, we'd need a source on previous voting patterns of FF voters, and I don't know of any such source). Personally I don't care if the sentence is in or out. Rocksong 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The bottom of the 2004 election page shows preference directions. Around two thirds of FF go to the libs. Timeshift 18:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Howard attacks U.S. Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

(Cross-posted from Talk:Barack Obama.)

Today, Australian Prime Minister John Howard unleashed a pretty scathing criticism of Senator Obama, including saying that "If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats" and "I think that would just encourage those who wanted to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for those terrorists, to hang on and hope for an Obama victory." Opposition leader Kevin Rudd's response can be found here.

This is an unusually partisan criticism from a foreign head of state, is it notable for inclusion? Italiavivi 17:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, the whole thing is just extraordinary. Slac speak up! 03:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It certainly merits at least a one-sentence mention. ~ Rollo44 05:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Normally I'm reluctant to report everything a politician does or says the minute it happens, but I think this one is destined to be noteworthy. (What was he thinking?). But there's no harm in waiting a few days either. Rocksong 07:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be anal, but Howard is NOT head of state! Kewpid 07:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Mr. Howard is Head of Government, not Head of State. Most countries' systems (including Australia) differentiate between those two positions. --thirty-seven 05:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. combines the two. An American editor might be understandably confused. --Pete 05:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre is all I can say. We're still wondering where that came from. Remember to add Obama's response as well! Khirad 09:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

John made the comments because he feels strongly about it and it makes sence. i read the Obama statement (beefore Johns reply), and i was thinking the same thing as John —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eevo (talk • contribs) 15:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Somewhat extraordinary altho Bush made a somewhat similar comment albeit in a more indirect way and without naming any names in the last Aussie election Nil Einne 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

NB I would say it meets the threshold for notability. Seemed to be all over the American news (Fox & CNN) and even BBC mentioned it fairly prominently Nil Einne 17:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if it holds up. I'd say Obama picked it up because he wanted media exposure on the day after announcing his candidacy, not because he cares what the Australian PM says. If it's still on the radar in a month's time, it's notable. --Pete 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Obama doesn't need to do anything to get media attention. They already watch his every twitch and grin. Second, he didn't "pick it up" on his own, he managed to get through a 15-minute press conference until the very end when a FoxNews correspondent asked him to comment. Lastly, he should have and had every right to respond to the direct personal attack on him from Howard. The Australian PM said he isn't presidential and that terrorists want Democrats to win in 2008. "If I was running Al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats." -- "He’s a long way from being president of the United States." I'm surprised Obama gave such a measured response. ~ Rollo44 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So Obama's response came in response to a question and he didn't know anything about it beforehand? OK. That explains a lot. As for your interpretation, well, you draw a long bow. --Pete 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just what is my interpretation? Any man has a right to deliver a public, premeditated, and sharp response to such an unwarranted personal attack, regardless of whether or not it draws media attention. ~ Rollo44 19:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly a 'personal' attack. The PM's comments were directed to the stated policy, rather than any personal characteristics. You say "The Australian PM said he isn't presidential", when as a matter of fact, no such comment was made. The opinions you say John Howard expresses are actually your interpretations. This is not good encyclopaedic practice. --Pete 22:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"He’s a long way from being president of the United States." I think this could be fairly construed as not being presidential, although you would predictably beg to differ. Nevertheless, the man has a right to deliver a public, premeditated, and sharp response. Of course, you'll just find one semantic issue after another to quibble over like whether it was personal, so any further discussion is pointless. On a different note, I am eager to see whether Howard augments the Australian presence in Iraq for a cause he seems so passionate about, or whether his words are just rhetorical. ~ Rollo44 00:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Augmenting troop numbers in Iraq isn't on John Howard's agenda. That's something Obama came up with on his own and is obviously rhetorical, deflecting attention from the fact that he didn't address the substance of the PM's remarks, which were directed at withdrawing troops, not adding them. As the FoxNews commentator noted in the clip, "Obama appears to be something of a master at rhetoric".

Saying that a freshly-announced candidate for an election not scheduled for another 20 months is "a long way from being president of the United States" is a statement of fact. Obama has, like any other prospective candidate, a long and difficult path to follow before becoming president. Even if he overcomes all of the many hurdles in his path, not least of which is gaining the support of the voters, 20 months is indeed "a long way". Your interpretation is contrived and goes well past a common sense reading of the PM's words.

Do you have anything of substance to offer regarding this article? If not, then perhaps you would find another forum more satisfying. --Pete 00:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, given that it could and has received significant media attention in the States, he was necessitated to craft a reply as quickly as possible. Slac speak up! 19:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It would depend on the sequence of events. Obama's response doesn't appear carefully crafted - in fact it is rhetorical, and doesn't address the substance of Howard's comments. --Pete 22:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete, to put it bluntly, you're coming across as too argumentative. After nationwide front-page headlines, the proposal for a televised debate, and two raucous debates in Parliament, it's pretty big news. I am flabbergasted by the interpretation you offer of Howard's comments, which appears to be:

Journalist: and what do you think of Barack Obama's commitment to remove troops from Iraq?

Howard: I would note as a factual observation that Barack Obama will not be president for another 20 months Oh, and incidentally, the policy he's advocating will cause death and victory for mass murderers. But this is purely an observation on a foreign citizen's opinions on his own government's policy, not a personal attack on his qualifications to be President.

What on Earth would Howard have to have done to make it a personal attack? Suggest that Obama had nothing constructive to contribute and invite him to go elsewhere?Slac speak up! 07:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's stick to what both parties said, hmmmmm? --Pete 14:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still very confused on why his comments are not even mentioned in the John Howard article. How hard would it be to just add in a brief, objective statement? Most Americans probably had never heard of him until his comments about Obama. I understand supporters of Howard might want to play this incident down, but frankly it generated too much media attention not to be mentioned in the article. --CommonSense22 01:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

John Howard generates a lot of media attention every day of the week, merely by being Prime Minister. Looking at today's papers, I find only peripheral mentions of this particular story. I doubt that there is any media frenzy in US papers over the issue. The fact is that it is no big deal and does not belong in a biographical article. As I said, if it still has legs in a month's time, then by all means include it. in the meantime, write it up in WikiNews. --Pete 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You should also mention that JWH completely twisted the actual content of Obama's speech - where Obama specifically stated that he was not speaking about a "precipitated" withdrawal of troops from Iraq. JHW deliberatley misrepresented what was said (something that Wikipedians should instinctively loathe, if they are dedicated to fairness, balance and accuracy). Further, JWH has made an art of protecting his political backside by learning how not to be advised by senior public servants and other ministerial staff.

John Howard flip-flops on Iraq troop withdrawal

It was pretty bewildering to hear John Howard say on Monday that any withdrawing of troops from Iraq would be a "victory for the terrorists", and even making a timetable for withdrawal would mean the terrorists win; followed up by his government saying that the British made a "wise decision" to withdraw troops from Iraq and make a timetable to withdraw the rest. Now after talking to Dick Cheney, he's saying that for Australia to withdraw troops from Iraq would embolden Iran, and that would be a catastrophe for everybody in the region "not just the Israelis". Well where did the "not just the Israelis" bit come from? Who was talking about the Israelis? And why would the withdrawal of Australian troops embolden the Iranians and cause a catastrophe, but the British troops leaving is still a "wise decision"? And how come Dick Cheney says it would be okay for Australian troops to withdraw from Iraq? How can the wisdom of various decisions change hour-to-hour depending on who's talking, and what they're talking about, when they are essentially the same decisions? Why was Howard slamming Barack Obama for saying the USA should withdraw from Iraq, but saying that the British withdrawing is such a great idea? The whole thing just gets more and more confusing.

If you are confused, perhaps it is best you devote your attention to endeavours other than editing an encyclopaedia. Carpet bowls is a sport where you may concentrate your energies, and I wish you the best of luck! --Pete 16:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't confused by these contradictory statements, maybe you could explain them? Please explain how withdrawing Australian troops or making a timetable to withdraw them would be a catastrophe for freedom and a victory for terrorists, whereas withdrawing British troops is a wise decision. Or maybe you think throwing insults around is a suitable endeavour for encylopaedia editors. 220.253.88.47 09:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)jim

The withdrawal of the 460 strong Danish contingent (similar in size to the Australian contingent of 520 that the ALP wants to withdraw) is also interesting: is that a "wise decision" or "a victory for the terrorists"? AussieBoy 06:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Duck nibbling

You know, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. A place where students can go to get the facts. When I was a kid, I loved to browse through World Book, Encyclopaedia Brittanica and all the others. I could go look up something, some little piece of information, and hours would pass as I turned pages, followed cross references, stopped to look at a colourful picture and so on. Editing Wikipedia is probably, in my own small way, some sort of repayment on the debt I owe the folk who put together those big thick square books.

Wikipedia is a great resource. Although I take it with a grain of salt sometimes, it's my first stop for information and answers to questions. And you know what? It's even better than a printed book for browsing. Click in this and that and you follow a trail of serendipity, every journey unique.

So why the hell do we get editors whose only purpose in life seems to be to bastardise the whole thing, subverting decent, factual informative, interesting and even entertaining articles into political statements? Every edit they make is intended to twist the facts just a little bit into their preferred distortion. In this case, the idea is to make John Howard into some sort of stumbling, evil idiot. Downplay his successes, highlight his failures. I've no doubt that the same people doing this are also whitewashing Paul Keating and turning Gough Whitlam into a flawless alabaster saint. And other people are doing precisely the reverse. This sort of activity feeds off the growing success and reputation of Wikipedia, the product of an unprecedented co-operation by thousands of devoted editors, all committed to making a quality product. It's using the growing authority of Wikipedia to provide gravity and support to political statements of dubious merit.

I guess if the article eventually gets twisted and spun and wriggled and nibbled far enough, one little duck quack at a time, it will say "John Howard is the Antichrist" and schoolkids will read it and believe it, knowing if Wikipedia says it, it must be so.

The most recent antics are aimed at presenting young Howard's unsuccessful run at state parliament as some sort of ham-fisted loss of a safe Liberal seat. Drummoyne in the Sixties certainly wasn't blue-ribbon, it wasn't a Liberal seat and although it had returned some Liberal members in the past, it was now a solid Labor seat. In 1968, it hadn't been held by the Liberals for six years, and in 2007, nearly 40 years on, it still hasn't been regained by the Liberals.

I regard this sort of manipulation of a factual article to be vandalism. Worse than vandalism, worse than some schoolkid finding that they can say of a classmate "Bugsy Jones is a poopy-head". It's subverting the wikidream, and I won't tolerate it, regardless of which side of politics is the supposed benificary, and who is the target. Let's stick with the facts, make sure that we are on solid, sourced ground, and do our best to write a good article. I suggest that if you want to nibble an article to death, you discuss your amendment in the talk pages, rather than engage in an edit war. --Pete 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hugging and Kissing another dude in Manuka

So I saw our Honourable PM hugging and kissing (purely friendly) another dude in Manuka, but for someone so conservative it was a surprise. Is this relevant for his page?

Let me get this straight. You're asking if it's appropriate to say, in an encyclopedic article on PM John Howard, that he was once seen giving a friendly hug to a man in a public place? In short, no. JackofOz 05:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Electoral district of Drummoyne

The seat of Drummoyne had been in non-Labor hands for most of its history prior to Coady. It is disingenuous of people to suggest that it was a Labor seat in 1967 - it was marginal at the time which was why the well connected party yoof apparatchik got himself preselected. The so-called Liberal Party of Australia is the direct descendant of the equally tory United Australia Party. Albatross2147 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity to review the wording. I've removed some more POV editorialising. --Pete 01:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not editoriallsing. It's about fleshing out the bare bones of the article. Add more info, don't snipe Pete.Albatross2147 02:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is already long. I don't mind presenting the facts, but I take exception to slantng them so as to mislead the reader. --Pete 05:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

John Howard's nuptials

Believe it or not but Barnett (a Howard mate) quotes Howard's best man as having expressed surprise at his marrage. I had cited the reference and it is easily checked. You should be able to do this. Most public libraries will have a copy of Barnett's turgid panegyric. I got mine for nothing at Vinnies 'cos I had made a donation. The guy who previously had owned it hadn't read it but you can tell he was a fan 'cos he had left lots of neatly clipped fawning press cuttings from the Tele about John Howard (and John Brogden) in the book. Albatross2147 11:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but it's a personal matter and who freakin cares. Rocksong 11:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The opinion of a mate on Howard's marriage is hardly worth including. Is it relevant to his career? IIRC, surprise was expressed that this nerdy guy could score a foxy sheila. Me, I think they go together perfectly and she's not that hot anyway. May I suggest, Albatross, that you give over trying to nibble away at John Howard through Wikipedia and leave the article to concentrate on the relevant details. If you hate him so much, go and run for Parliament yourself. --Pete 11:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As with most articles about politicians and high-profile people, it's impractical to include all trivia and controversies. It would make the page far too long and tedious to read. Just my two cents' worth anyway Naysie 13:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

same sex union legislation in act

under the section 'fourth term' it says that the act same sex union legislation undermined the marriage act (for which there is no reference and it did not). therefore i request that an account holder edit the information to this extent

Did John Howard "represent" or "play for" Canterbury Boys High at Rugby or cricket?

I had found that reference as well. The following exchange occurs in it:

Gerald Tooth: You attended Canterbury Boys High between 1952 and 1956. It's a rugby school. Did you play? John Howard: Yes I did, it was a rugby school, I played rugby league internally. I played for the second 15 Canterbury Boys High School second 15.

Mr Howard states that he played "internally" (i.e., against other boys from his own school). This clearly indicates that he did NOT "represent" or "play for" his school. I can find no reference in which he or anyone else claims this. Therefore, this claim should be removed, unless specific information to the contrary can be found and cited. AussieBoy 05:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine who the second 15 played against if not other schools. Get a grip. --Pete 10:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please address the facts only (as you have conspicuously failed to do in this case), and desist from comments like "Get a grip". With your unenviable record of name-calling, bullying, cyberstalking, a one year ban from Wikipedia, discouragement of others from contributing and your unending bombast.......but I won't go on. Hopefully Wikipedia administrators will look at your behavior again soon. For the record, Howard himself states that he played rugby "internally". Real evidence would be required to establish a different position. If you really believe it is trivial, as you stated previously, why do you insist on reverting this? After all, it still states that he played rugby and cricket while at school. AussieBoy 05:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The facts are quite clear. John Howard played league internally. He also played rugby union for the school's second 15. If you don't understand something, ask for it to be explained; wikipedia is full of helpful people. --Pete 16:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

At least your civility has improved slightly, although I shall add superciliousness to the previous list. We both know that Howard did not play both League and Union at school. If you wish to maintain that he did, you will need evidence, in accordance with Wikipedia norms. Cheers. AussieBoy 07:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I direct you to established wikipolicy at WP:NPA. May I suggest that you play the ball rather than the man. John Howard played both league and union at school, gaining official credentials as a rugby union referee. Once again, if you don't understand something, please don't guess. --Pete 16:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a "Howard Hater" but there is no doubt that Howard did represent the school in the sense that he was a member of teams that played in CHS Zone competitions and would have had a photo in the annual CBHS magazine. Pete - ref your shot at me above - at least I have made positive contributions to this article which is more than you have (saving your self appointed guardian angel role). Albatross2147 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to Wikipedia, we are all self-appointed guardian angels. I have to smile when I see the lengths some will go to in preserving their contributions, even when they are quite wrong. It is likewise wrong of me to take pleasure in exposing the shortcomings of others, but really, when someone sticks their foot in their mouth in such a fashion, it takes a sterner man than I to resist. AussieBoy's delightful observation that Howard didn't play Rugby Union at school is just a bent-over invitation for someone to take a free kick. Or rather, fifteen free kicks, one for each man on the fifteen strong rugby union team, as opposed to the thirteen in league.

As for wikiroles, we're all different. Some go out and write articles from scratch, others construct templates, others take photographs. There are organisers and category-fillers, vandal-fighters and wikignomes fixing the spelling. Me, if I spot an error, I fix it. --Pete 00:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I should also mention that in the gospel according to St Barnett it is quite clearly stated that Howard played in the 2nd XV at both full-back and breakaway - so he was a versatile little rugger bugger playing in positions that require some courage and ball skills. Furthermore he also played Association Football for church teams until he was in his early 20s and played cricket at a reasonable level (in that all players wore creams and the umps were not provided by the playing teams) until he entered parliament. I am trying to summarise this in a short sentence. There you go Pete - something positive for you to have a shot at. Albatross2147 20:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Stop Press" Barnett includes school photos of both the 1956 CBHS 2nd XI and XVs which include a fresh faced Jack Howard in team attire in their number. Interestingly the rugby team includes a boy who is of Asian descent, testimony to the multicultural make up of the school even at that time. Albatross2147 21:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Would scans of the school photos constitute "fair use"? It occurs to me that for his first three years at high school JWH only played intra school house sport and got selected in grade teams in the last two years only because most of the competent players had left after the Intermediate at the end of third year. Albatross2147 23:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to be proven wrong. I also apologize for my loss of equilibrium, although I note that what I said regarding patterns of behavior is true (IMHO, of course). I do not normally overreact unless provoked, and in that context, I note that that I have found prior breaches of WP:NPA upsetting. Again, my apologies. AussieBoy 01:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said! There's nothing I like more than to have someone show me a mistake, suitably backed up with good references. I'm certainly not immune from dropping the most outrageous clangers from time to time, usually when I don't do my homework properly. However, I suggest that in making comments about my personality, you don't have the full story, and making threats based on your incorrect understanding doesn't do much more than amuse me and egg me on. --Pete 01:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

removed paragraph

In his time his popularity has been seemingly undented. His approval rating, though showing slight ups and downs, remain steadily above 50%. Howard explains this through his frequently repeated quote, "My proof is in my record. This has seen Australia with low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment, higher wages and a total elimination of government debt". As a testament to the Howard government's economic credentials, Australian Treasurer Peter Costello was asked in June 2006 to be the special guest of the G8 Finance Minister's Summit in Saint Petersburg, Russia—though Australia is not part of the G8—to advise these nations on good governance and public finance.

Have removed the above - basically inaccurate in terms of popularity as measured by the leaders satisfaction /dissatisfaction rating. Statement by howard of his own success / performance is nothing more than a self serving statement. While contrary views could also be cited, the effect would be to bog down the article more than it already is. Quote about Costello going to G8 isn't sourced as to the assertion that the reason for this evidences the Howard government's credentials - and in any case better off going into Costello's page if its relevant. While one could add in all the vicissitudes of the opinion polls, I don't think this is particularly relevant over the longer term unless it has an impact at election time. --Hmette 06:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I also removed a paragraph which I thought was pointless in an already long article. I meant to give a reason but I accidentally saved before filling in the edit summary. Rocksong 06:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a sensible edit to me. Danger with these articles is that they get very long and include matters that are ultimately of limited relevance. --Hmette 06:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Skyring

I have observed your revisions on a number of occasions now both on my contributions and others. This page and others are not your personal domain, and I suggest you stop treating them as such. In the process stop abusing others who make changes that you dont agree with. My edit removed a quote from howard about himself, and moved an event that related to 2006 to its proper place in the article. At the same time, it added references and improved accuracy. The changes are in my view resonable. Your actions in simply reverting changes it extremely ofputting, and one of the reasons many people feel they canont contribute to such pages, or canot be bothered to. A repeat performance will result in my making a complaint on the issue. --Hmette 06:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you leave out the personal attacks and pay due attention to wikiprocess. If you want to blank out established paragraphs in the article, especially when they are very pertinent to the subject, then please discuss it here first. We edit through consensus, not personal abuse and threats. What strikes you as reasonable may well be viewed by others as politically-motivated vandalism, and it is best to get a range of opinions. --Pete 06:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

While I too find Skyring's annoying at times, I think he's in the right this time. I think the move of the debt paragraph was at best a poor edit, at worst looks politically motivated. First, you removed the reference to the size of the debt Howard inherited. Second, you put in a sentence on "net worth", even though (to my knowledge) it generated no political debate (i.e. it's insignificant). Rocksong 07:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't remember reading that section (where abouts is it?). Is/Was the size of the debt Howard inherited put into context of the amount of debt that Howard left Keating? Especially in regards to debt as a proportion of yearly government revenue.Alans1977 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The removal of the size of the debt should probably go back in, and was an inadvertent edit. As to the nature of the debt, I think its important to clarify what it is we're talking about. Placing it out of context means that there is no reference to what other factors go towards economic management. Net worth is simply a calculation of the government's assets minus liabilities as opposed to net financial debt. What bothers me is simply constantly reverting edits. If his problem is with content, there are far more constructive ways of dealing with it. As for the last revert which removes reference to a new opposition leader, clearly this is a relevant matter to include. --Hmette 07:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the "net worth" is a non-issue, politically. I never heard Labor say, "yes you've eleminated debt but there's still the problem of net worth". You'll need to prove me wrong by showing Labor (or other serious political) commentary on it, or it should be taken out. Rocksong 08:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right in the assessment that it's a political non-term in the sense of not being used in debate. I used the terms simply because it appeared in the budget papers, and not simply the 10sec sound grab from the opposition, which use the foreign debt levels as the principle counter argument. There are also a number of sources that cite drops in infrastructure as being a consequence of simply running a cash surplus. An article that explains the underling economics: [1] The problem with economics is that many terms are used to describe related themes. I guess the concept is that yes we no longer have all this debt, but we also don't have all these assets generating income either. Ultimately government debt is just one measure of a highly complex budgetary arrangement. If it is placed in isolation it creates a misleading impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

This is a biography of the Prime Minister, not an economic text, so we're essentially going to be limited to widely-understood "sound-bites". If you can't explain something, perhaps the answer is to let others refine it, rather than delete it out of frustration.

Removal of the material beginning "Prudent economic management remained the government's strongest claim throughout its term, and a prolonged period of economic growth remains an essential element in its popularity" looks to me to verge on vandalism. It is backed up by the CIA Factbook reference, and it's really just a statement of fact. Sound economic performance marks Australia over the past decade and (of course) John Howard claims the credit for this.

My beef is not really with the content, though I side with Rocksong as to keeping the material. Repeated removal of the paragraph without consensus is vandalism, as well as a serious breach of wikiquette.

Inserting material about Kevin Rudd isn't quite so controversial, though the edit looks to be unsourced commentary beyond the bald facts. I think with Kevin Rudd the real story lies in the polling figures - John Howard has been behind in the polls before, but not to this extent, and in an election year it is especially relevant. --Pete 09:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that you've now reverted edits a third time. On this occasion it includes material that you admit is uncontroversial, on top of edits made to address the only constructive criticism that has been made. Rather than making up your own rules about "gaining consensus" I think you should have a read over the rules relating to reverting material including:

* Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously. * Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism. * If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it. * If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Not to mention the 3RR itself. I am simply trying to re-order a page that is currently in a poor state. I note that the 4th term part seems to stop at about Feb 2006 - over 12 months ago. Removing material that is attempting to get it moving is not a constructive way of going about things either. --Hmette 09:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't say that your additions are uncontroversial. In fact I have just highlighted a major problem with the Kevin Rudd reference, in that it is essentially your own unsourced opinion. It looks to me like you are gaming the system by blanking a paragraph without consensus and then making subsequent minor additions, perhaps hoping that the vandalism will go unnoticed. We can always talk about the small additions later on, but for now the major problem is your continued blanking of material. It is standard wikiprocedure to discuss controversial changes rather than engage in edit-warring. Gain consensus on the discussion page first and then everyone will abide by the result and we won't have any problems. Wikipedia is a large, co-operative community and it works best when we follow established procedures. --Pete 09:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete, it's not helpful accusing Hmette of vandalism, when clearly it isn't. Rocksong 10:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I refer to the page on vandalism, specifically thapart that says, "Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism." I also see the addition of subsequent small edits as a tactic to hide the blanking as indicative of Hmette's state of mind. --Pete 10:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You are quoting the section entitled "Blanking" and Hmette's edits are clearly not blanking. And has it occured to you that the subsequent edits are just because Hmette has been busy? WP:Assume good faith. Rocksong 10:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this diff, we see the blanking of a relevant paragraph, and a misleading edit summary. I have no confidence that Hmette's edits improve the article. While I cannot say that Hmette's minor additions are deliberate concealment of the blanking, it is a pattern familiar to any vandal fighter: a controversial edit followed up with a few minor edits in quick succession, knowing that only the last edit will show up on a watchlist. --Pete 11:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism shouldn't be made lightly. As I indicated earler, I sought to move information that related to 2006 to the relevant paragraph and improve accuracy. While you may have all sorts of conspiracy theories about vandalism you should probably base that on some actual facts. As for allegations that I am some sort of "vandal fighter" you should probably find some sort of basis to back that up. I don't spend all day every day editing Wiki, infact, I stoped doing it in any significant way for quite some time because I was more occupied with other things. Quite frequently I ignore political pages, which although interesting are notoriously frustrating to edit in any meaningful way because some people have nothing better to do than to revert any changes. My intention with this edit was to move the factual material to its proper place in time and remove the following line: "Prudent economic management remained the government's strongest claim throughout its term, and a prolonged period of economic growth remains an essential element in its popularity" which is actually unsourced, and does not contain any reliable factual material. While there is a link to the CIA factbook this currently states: "Conservative fiscal policies have kept Australia's budget in surplus since 2002." There is no reference to prudent economic management. To some Keynsian economists, "conservative fiscal policies" are actually a bad thing. The government's claims that it was a "prudent economic manager" title doesn't mean its an objective fact either. The previous government claimed similar things, and I'm sure the next one will too. On the subject of edits, I usually take the approach with edits of making small changes rather than large ones. I feel this is preferable to not contributing at all. While you may well be offended by any sort of deletion, there is no policy against deleting material. The fact that Wiki is a metaphorical blank space, doesn't mean it should be filled with all manner of views that are ultimately subjective in nature. Where these take up large chunks of an article, their deletion does not constitute vandalism. Re: Kevin Rudd - I don't think its just my opinion that he's now the leader of the opposition, and I don't think I'm making up the fact that he's Howards first opponent who was not in parliament at the time Howard was elected. On your rational of "blanking" our deletion of these sections was itself vandalism. Perhaps in future you could pay other users a little more respect rather than instantly assuming they are vandals. --Hmette 13:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said you were a vandal fighter. The pattern of your behaviour is one familiar to anyone who has spent time battling the more insidious pests. Looking at your overall contributions, I think it is fair to say that you have a certain political agenda - one that makes all your contributions to political articles worthy of examination on the grounds of bias. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but I rather tend to think that your first priority in life might be more the destruction of John Howard than the production of a better encyclopaedia.

As for Kevin Rudd, I have no complaints about either of the points you mention above. But looking at this diff, I cannot say that the second sentence of your contribution is of much encyclopaedic value: "On Monday 4 December 2006 Kevin Rudd replaced Kim Beazley as leader of the opposition. This event changed the dynamic of the contest between the Howard government and the opposition." I think that the best that can be said for it is that you gave "Howard" an initial capital, something you seem to find difficult in edit summaries and discussion. --Pete 16:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than acting like some self appointed guardian of all pages you contribute to, maybe its time you stepped back a little and let others respond to changes. Your actions in repeatedly reverting pages almost as soon as changes are made are the actions of someone who has an obsession. Typically edits aren't perfect first time around - that's why when you see one that you take issue with, you should edit that, rather than just reverting it. I'm not the only user who finds your approach offensive. Obviously someone in the past has been offended enough to have you banned. Maybe now is the time to look in the mirror and find a way of contributing so as to not irritate other people. --Hmette 23:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have any relevant response to make to the points already raised, then please don't fill up the space here with personal rants. We don't have to like each other, but surely we can work together to improve Wikipedia. As for obsessions, you'd best get used to it. Try to think how you'd like to be treated. There are a lot of obsessive folk here, and for my part, I wish that I had found ways to handle them earlier on. May I suggest that open hostility is not the best path to wikijoy? --Pete 19:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm this

I've heard many times in the past that Howard lived at home until he was in his 30s and only moved out when he married Janette, can anyone verify this with a source? Also I've heard many times in the past that his mother negotiated his first wage when he left uni, again can anyone verify this with a source? Alans1977 19:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about verifying the source/s but the article itself says he was born in the 1930's and moved out of home in 1971 when he married Janette. I'm not sure how or why this particular piece of trivia is relevant... but anyway. Surely just "He married Janette in 1971" is sufficient? Naysie 13:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

True. As far as relevance, it's a biography. Would be interested to hear from anyone who knows whether or not his mother negotiated his first wage.Alans1977 18:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Howard did go and work overseas (UK) for some time after he graduated and before he married. It is relevant to his biography to say that apart from when he was o/s he lived at home. Mona H was a strong influence on all the boys and they have all grown up to have successful careers but the other three had left home earlier. Nobody has drawn any conclusions as to why he lived at home - perhaps it was a mix of convenience (his work and political activities taking up close to 100% of his time and he liked having someone willing to do his laundry and make his meals and to provide a bed to fall into when he got home) and filial devotion as by this time Mona was getting on and his companionship would have been important to her wellbeing. As to Mona negotiating his first wage, it seems that Rosenblum pere knew and admired her and articles were akin to an apprenticeship so it seems logical that she would have been consulted and involved when her youngest was taking the first very important decision about his career. Barnett, a Howard pal, has a bit to say about all of this but Skyring and his mates revert nearly everything lest it impinge on their efforts to have the Blessed John beatified. Albatross2147 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are giving Wikipedia a bit more influence than it actually has, but Jimbo is working on it. If it's factual, sourced, relevant and encyclopaedic, I have no problems with including material. --Pete 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It does seem logical that Howard's mother would've negotiated his first wage, however what I am in interested in is a source. Alans1977 07:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Workchoices protests and Climate change material

While this material could be better phrased, simply removing it is blatant editing for political purposes. These two issues are live issues and possibly explain the current situation in the polls. Rather than just deleting on mass they should be selectively updted. In light of your previous comments about "blanking" sections, this type of editing is grossly hypocritical at best. --Hmette 01:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As noted when I removed it, this para has been flagged as unsourced for a month. You want to keep it, fix it. That's how the system works. --Pete

Thanks for finding a source, Rocksong. That's great.

Hmette, looking at this diff, where you unthinkingly restored the unsourced material with an edit summary of "Material largely sourced. Please desist from making your POV edits.", it is clear that you don't understand that we need to have an independent source for material, especially biographies of living people. The material you restored had been flagged as unsourced as a month, and no matter how many times you restored it, claiming that it was "largely sourced", it remained unsourced because there was no reference to an independent source given. Sure, we all knew the rallies happened, but that's not good enough. That's what Stephen Colbert would call truthiness. Rather than unthinkingly restoring challenged material, you should have done what Rocksong did - go out and find a good source and fix up any errors. Instead, you chose to make personal attacks and engage in an edit war. --Pete 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete, we've had this discussion before. You removed whole slabs of material, claiming it was all unsourced. There were some references that could have been better sourced, but were uncontrovercial in terms of the underlying events. In addition, you deleted whole slabs of material that was sourced. Hence the summary "largely sourced". As you will note, the unsourced material is now sourced. Deleting material which can generally be seen as negative, rather than trying to improve it, then misrepresenting your edits in my view amounts to a POV edit. --Hmette 02:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the diff mentioned, none of it was sourced. If you disagree, please show me the sources in that version, and I'll apologise. But let's stick to the facts, please. --Pete 02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reorganisation thoughts

Someone (Hmette I think) observed that the article is a bit of a mess, and I agree. Particularly the sections on the 2001-2004 terms, and the current term, look like randomly added paragraphs. I'd like to propose dividing these sections into topical sub-sections rather than arranging them chronologically, on the basis that this is an encyclopedia article not a news page. For the current term, the material could be grouped under the sub-sections "Senate Majority", "Industrial 'Reforms'", "Asylum Seekers" (gone quiet now but it was big in 2005), "Iraq/Terrorism" (AWB would go there I guess), "Climate Change", (and the "Retirement" section could be moved there too). That would cover pretty well everything there, and make it read a whole lot better IMHO. Rocksong 11:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a mess, right enough. Suggest something more like Tony Blair, which has a coherence to it that this article lacks. I'd also like to see this become a biographical article about John Howard, rather than a political op shop. --Pete 20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is a bio of a politician is going to mean that sections of it are political, this in my opinion is unavoidable and not necessarily a bad thing. Alans1977 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at Tony Blair's article, it's heavily political as well. But it's coherent and not over the top. Looking at this article, it brings in many subjects that are of incidental relevance to John Howard the politician. We should focus on his career and major policy inputs. --Pete 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair is split into Tony Blair and Prime Ministry of Tony Blair. The latter is organised like I suggest: major sections are the parliamentary terms, minor sections within each parliamentary term are topical rather than chronological. I don't think we need to split the Howard article (the split causes lots of needless repetition for one thing), but I do think we need to reorganise the sections on his Prime Ministry (is that the right word) - especially the recent ones - as I've outlined above. Rocksong 00:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sections titled "Third term: 2001–2004" and "The 2004 election campaign"

One thing I've noticed a bit of in these two sections is quite a bit of speculation. Lines like "... may have helped him to retain the "battler" vote which, combined with his strong conservative base .." or " ... and contributed to a recovery by the government in the opinion polls", which may be true, however this does not seem to be encyclopedic to me at all. Another thing I've noticed is usage of language which is suggestive of achievements Howard has made, achievements which may not necessarily be attributed to him. For example, "... and the Australian economy remained strong, Howard retained a clear political advantage over his opponents" or "The strength of the Australian economy under Howard's leadership ...". While these sections may not right out credit Howard for the supposedly strong Australian economy, they certainly elude to that. Again to me this has no place in a encyclopia, especially as this is a matter of contention between various opinions (i.e. Howard is to credit for our current economic state V The Keating reforms are to credit for our current economic state V Government can do very little to influence an economy, this is far more influenced by world financial and trade markets). In some ways I thing these 1998 - 2001, 2001 - 2004 sort of sections should go altogether, as perhaps they are condusive to speculation and political point scoring. Perhaps it would be far better to talk about specific events in a factual manner, rather than trying to lay out some sort of a narrative. Just my opinion Alans1977 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"attempted to sully"

An editor keeps trying to insert the POV phrase "attempted to sully" instead of "attacked" in reference to Mark Latham. Beside the fact it is a stupid phrase it pushes the POV that Howard was being dishonest in the criticism. It also assumes Lathams record was not already "sullied" something else that is POV.Prester John 23:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "attempted to sully" is in my opinion more NPOV than "attacked" given the context. In the context "attacked" makes it sound like what was being said by Howard was a valid criticism. This is debatable. The phrase "attempted to sully" more accurately describes what happens in political debates, where one side or both attempts to drag the other's standing through the mud. Alans1977 00:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As for pushing a POV that Howard was being dishonest, I disagree. You can attempt to sully someone over something that they deserve to be sullied about.Alans1977 00:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Prester John on this one, both as it being a silly phrase, and it carrying POV baggage. "Attack" is a fairly NPOV description for what Howard did. Rocksong 00:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. Even "ALP's media arm" used it: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1209108.htm Rocksong 00:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the "Attempted to sully" phrase either, but the existing wording implies that there was a basis for "attacking". Whether there is or isn't is highly subjective. Something along the lines of John Howard claimed... could be better. Overall this paragraph is pretty poorly written and could probably do with a re-write.