Talk:John Howard/Archive 1

message: Regarding the Tampa incident, some person is seeking to obfusicate the key issues of this affair by adding phrases attempting to show how nasty the assylum seekers were in "threatning the ship". This information is not relevant, even if true which is highly doubtful (references?). The key issues as they relate to Howard's term as Prime Minister (which is supposed to be the subject of the article) are:
*Australian Government request rescue
*Australian Government refuses permission to land
*Australian Government uses military force to resolve situation
"Australian rescue services urged the ship to pick up the refugees, and then refused the Tampa safe harbour. The message now is that they couldn't care less and do not intend to adhere to international agreements," - Norway's Foreign Office press spokesman Karsten KlepsvikKlepsvik quoted in Aftenposten Interactive: http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=186143
Please spare me these pathetic apologies about how nasty the asylum seekers were and how they "should have been taken to Indonosia" - this is just rubbish and buys completely into the government's propaganda line the most famous example of which was the totally fictious "children overboard" incident.
For some related reading see: http://sievx.com/
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=536750
http://www.susannassoapbox.com/nsattampa.html (satire)
-- Sydneysider.
:I thought the summary of the Tampa issue was relatively unbiased and succint. You say only three issues related to the article should have been mentioned, but I would disagree: if we were to tell it the way you want it told, it would not be clear why Howard came out of it so popular. We say "by some reports, they threatened the ship" -- and indeed there were reports of that (whether they were true or not is another matter). But can you deny that those reports had some role in shaping public opinion on the matter? Overall, the tone seems to come out against the Government's action: for example, the attribution of public support to "distrust of asylum-seekers from Asian countries" alludes to the continuing xenophobia in the Australian public, which I would say is truly at the root of this issue. -- Tim Starling 23:50 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
::Thanks. You make excellent points. I probably still feel that the paragraph lacks succintness - there are many other bits of information and mis-information that could be worked in to "broaden" the view of the incident - but we are missing the forest for the trees. Also if the reports were false they should be described as such. Anyway I will come back and have another look at it when I have more time. Thanks again - Sydneysider
Another aspect of the article which should be highlighted is the indication of the asylum seekers as being "illegal": "..Australians ... were hostile to illegal immigration.." As a counter-argument to this I would like to quote Boat-People.org:
"Under Australian Law and International Law a person is entitled to make an application for refugee asylum in another country when they allege they are escaping persecution. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
People who arrive on our shores without prior authorisation from Australia, with no documents, or false documents are not illegal. They are asylum seekers - a legal status under International Law.
Many Asylum Seekers are forced to leave their countries in haste and are unable to access appropriate documentation. In many cases oppressive authorities actively prevent normal migration processes from occurring.
'Illegals' are people who overstay their visas. The vast majority of these in Australia are from western countries, including 5,000 British tourists."
--ozwegian 12:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tampa

message: ===Howard vs Peacock===
Firstly, when the article mentions that, in 1985, Howard 'challenged' Peacock, what do we mean by this?  Howard did not launch a challenge in the sense that he never contested a ballot against Peacock.  Nor, as far as I'm aware, was Howard ever seriously considering running against Peacock.  Peacock felt threatened by Howard and bungled an attempt to remove him from the Deputy Leadership position (he spilt the DL position, expecting Howard to challenge for the leadership - Howard simply recontested for his old position, putting Peacock in an untenable position and forcing him to resign).
:It's slightly before my time, but if that is the true picture please edit the article to reflect it (I suppose I could get The End of Certainty and have a look...)
===1998 Election===
Secondly, about the financial figures in the 1998 election - again, I thought that the ALP actually outspent the Coalition (not particularly odd - it routinely happens in state elections nowadays), but that a tax-reform lobby group spent millions of dollars running a parallel campaign to the Coalition.
:Dunno.  I do remember "Australians For Tax Reform" (aka the Business Council of Australia).  Lexis-Nexis might be able to answer that one.
===Work-for-the-Dole===
Thirdly, I seem to recall Peter Reith and Tony Abbott saying at various times that the work-for-the-dole program was not intended to create new jobs (however, I can't back that up, so I'll have to dig out a quote from somewhere).
Merric
For edits like these, which sound reasonably uncontroversial to me (particularly if you can cite sources) just go ahead and make them. --Robert Merkel 06:09, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Tannin 08:25, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: General Details

message: Thirdly, I seem to recall Peter Reith and Tony Abbott saying at various times that the work-for-the-dole program was not intended to create new jobs (however, I can't back that up, so I'll have to dig out a quote from somewhere).
Merric
For edits like these, which sound reasonably uncontroversial to me (particularly if you can cite sources) just go ahead and make them. --Robert Merkel 06:09, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Tannin 08:25, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Work-for-the-Dole

message: Simon Crean is no longer leader of the opposition. The page should be modified to reflect that.  he kept his lead in the opinion polls over the new Labor leader, Simon Crean.. Reference: http://www.alp.org.au/
:Done. - Mark 13:12, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Simon Crean

message: I find it astonishing that Adam Carr would revert my edit with the comment: "(rvt comments about Timor which are (a) matters of opinion and (b) not relevant to this article)". His version said:
:Australia led pressure on Indonesia to uphold that country's offer to East Timor of a referendum on independence, and later contributed a significant peacekeeping/policing force to protect the inhabitants against pro-Indonesian militias. Most Australians and the rest of the Western world viewed this as a moral, principled stand. Howard reversed a decades-old bi-partisan foreign policy of appeasement towards Indonesia which had hitherto been followed by governments of both persuasions.
The formulation "Most Australians and the rest of the Western world viewed this as a moral, principled stand" is most certainly a matter of opinion -- for which no evidence is offered. My correction: 
:On the one hand, some in Australia and the rest of the Western world viewed this as a moral, principled stand. However, critics observe that the motivation for this intervention may have been less than altruistic: instead of negotiating with a relatively strong and determined government of Indonesia over rights to the oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea, Australia now is able to deal with a powerless and desperate government in East Timor. According to the British-based non- governmental humanitarian group Oxfam, Australia's thirst for petroleum poses a threat to East Timor's independence [http:// www.atimes.com/atimes/ Southeast_Asia/ FE22Ae02.html (Asia Times)]
-- is an attempt to balance the article with an opposing (and documented) view. If opposition to Howard's East Timor policy is "not relevant", than surely the dubious assertion that the whole world admires it cannot be relevant, either. --172.192.173.23
Just for the record, the line "the rest of the Western world viewed this as a moral, principled stand" was not written by me. I agree that it is too sweeping and could be deleted. However, the line "instead of negotiating with a relatively strong and determined government of Indonesia over rights to the oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea, Australia now is able to deal with a powerless and desperate government in East Timor" is even more sweeping, and much more tendentious. Many more people in Australia would subscribe to the former statement than to the latter. The correct solution is probably to delete all opinionated statements about Timor. This is not after all an article about Timor, and a statement of the fact that Howard did what he did will probably suffice here. Adam 04:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: East Timor

message: I got a letter from him. --Patricknoddy 21:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What did it say? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter 

message: I notice in the history there has been quite a bit of vandalisation from the following netblock:
inetnum:      211.26.0.0 - 211.27.255.255
netname:      INTERNETPRIMUS
descr:        Primus Telecommunications
descr:        Internet Services Network
country:      AU
admin-c:      jp21-ap
tech-c:       rc35-ap
mnt-by:       APNIC-HM
mnt-lower:    MAINT-PRIMUS-AU
status:       ALLOCATED PORTABLE
remarks:      -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
remarks:      This object can only be modified by APNIC hostmaster
remarks:      If you wish to modify this object details please
remarks:      send email to hostmaster@apnic.net with your organisation
remarks:      account name in the subject line.
remarks:      -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
changed:      hm-changed@apnic.net 20030930
source:       APNIC
person:       Jeff Pace
nic-hdl:      JP21-AP
e-mail:       netops@primus.com.au
address:      L3 1 Alfred Street
address:      Circular Quay
address:      Sydney NSW Australia
address:      2000
phone:        +61-2-9423 2400
fax-no:       +61-2-9423 2410
country:      AU
changed:      netops@primus.com.au 20030724
mnt-by:       MAINT-PRIMUS-AU
source:       APNIC
person:       Richard Coombe
nic-hdl:      RC35-AP
e-mail:       netops@primus.com.au
address:      Level 3
address:      1Alfred Street
address:      Circular Quay
address:      Sydney  NSW  2000
phone:        +61-2-9423 2400
fax-no:       +61-2-9423 2410
country:      AU
changed:      netops@primus.com.au 20030724
mnt-by:       MAINT-PRIMUS-AU
source:       APNIC
(from http://www.apnic.net/apnic-bin/whois.pl)
Could we block this for a while? (I may yet regret this as I may be in the same network range at work... still) - Ta bu shi da yu 04:36, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: iPrimus and Primus-AOL combined make one of Australia's largest ISPs. Are you suggesting blocking the entire ISP? - Mark 07:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Only for a short while. I was putting this out there temporarily to see what happens. Probably not practical. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we setup a temporary block on a specific network range? 

message: That bit about 2012 being when Howard passes Menzies is wrong - Menzies was PM for a total of 18 years, 5 months and 12 days so Howard will pass him on August 24, 2014. PMA 09:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Menzies 

message: From the Sydney Morning Herald:
Howard scored As in English and modern history in the Leaving Certificate and Bs in Latin, chemistry and economics. He failed general maths.
These are reasonable marks but I wouldn't say Howard excelled academically as the article states. Is it reasonable to put these marks in the article or should the statement just be removed?
:The statement should be removed. Adam 06:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excelled academically? 

message: It appears that some people are reverting edits that aren't vandalism without giving any reason why they are doing this. The text was reverted "These criticisms came from conservative figures such as ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and political commentator Robert Manne, as well as critics from the military, public service and Howard's own personal staff." to "These criticisms came from conservative figures such as ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and political commentator Robert Manne, as well as the more usual critics on the left." Why was this done? No explanation was given! It's ironic that both statements are pretty POV and have unattributed critics though. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say I agree with your factual version more that the clearly POV original. Mark Hurd 15:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting edits 

message: those ministries seem a bit bulky compared to the article. could they be made their own article with a link here? Xtra 06:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They're already in a list of Australian ministries that Adam just created. I also agree that they bloat the article. Ambi 06:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I guess the point is that they bloat the article - if that's the case for this one, it's most probably the case for most other Prime Ministers, particularly those who have served more than one term. Note that I've not seen this repeated elsewhere (none of the US Presidents have their administration in their article, none of the UK Prime Ministers have their cabinet there, etc.) Ambi 08:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ministries

message: We should mention somewhere that he is a Freemason. http://www.nobbys.net.au/~gumtree/mmma15.htm
That website makes it clear that he is NOT a Freemason. Adam 14:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Freemason

message: Howard will become the 2nd longest serving PM on 21 December. Adam 02:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd longest serving

message: sorry, but i had to remove the link, because the spam filter wouldnt let me save it with the link still there. Xtra 13:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: personal website

message: The article states:
Although some long-time Howard enemies in the Liberal Party such as former leader John Hewson and former federal president John Valder criticised Howard over Iraq, the great majority of Liberals continued to support his actions.
I have some problems with this:
The point that is being lost amongst a little obfuscation and wishy-washy "facts" is that very strong criticism of Howard has come from within very senior members of his own party and that this level of criticism is unusual. Particularly, it seems highly significant that such a senior Liberal as John Valder (former federal president of the party) should suggest that Howard is a "war criminal" (see reference).
By saying that this and other criticisms are coming from "long-time Howard enemies", this wording seems to suggest that somehow these criticisms are more motivated by personal animosity than any concern or relevance to the issues. Thus the passage strays from NPOV:
#To what extent can John Valder be regarded as a "long-time" enemy of Howard? Can we have some sources for this?
#Why has Malcolm Fraser been omitted from the list? Is he also to be regarded as "long-time" enemy?
The passage ssys: the great majority of Liberals continued to support his actions
What is a "Liberal"? - A member of the Liberal party or a person who voted for the government? If the former how does this account for a dramatic drop in the membershop of the party over the lifetime of the current electoral success? If the later, then it is rather misleading or at best ambiguous- better to say "continued to command strong electoral support"
Reference:
*Howard is war criminal, says former colleague (smh)
*John Howard is a war criminal (cpa.org.au but is quoting The Guardian)
--Wm 00:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But you haven't answered the questions raised. First, what is meant by a "Liberal"? - is this meant to refer to members of the Liberal Party? - in which case the text should be made explicit. However, if this is what is meant it is is misrepresenting the situation to state this unqualified statement because  membership of the party has (apparently) dropped dramatically: John Valder said that Liberal Party membership had dropped from an estimated 103,000 in 1983, to about 10,000 in both NSW and Victoria. Liberal Party members were walking away "in disillusionment". (see my second reference above) --Wm 04:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, we need to find support for this idea that Valder and Howard are "factional enemies" - I am very skeptical about this, I believe they are old friends: But John is a friend of mine in the past. I valued his support and his friendship. Even though he's very critical of me now I find it impossible to bear him any deep malice. (John Howard - Interviewed by  Laurie Oakes on August 15 2004 - Transcript --Wm 05:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism from Valder and others