Talk:John Howard/Archive 8

message: Can you change his political status?--RoryReloaded (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be something to do with daylight savings time detection not working.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphamone (talk • contribs) 11:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: He just gave his defeat speech on Ten news, give me a sec. --Chris 11:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: He remains (Caretaker) Prime Minister until the swearing in of Rudd in about a week's time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.28.166 (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately theres a lack of intelligence in the Australian people so we got Krudd Richardson j (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately Richardson this is a discussion page on the article and not a place to form your own opinions. Who would you have voted for, Sailor Moon? (Yes, I see the irony in this statement, do you?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.150.170 (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, please keep your comments civil; secondly, please read and heed the talk page guidelines; and thirdly, please sign your messages. John Howard is the incumbent PM until Kevin Rudd's appointed by the GG. Qwerty (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not PM 

message: Please amend entries referring to Mr Howard as the Australian Prime Minister to the past tense; this is because he lost the election.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keffiwiki (talk • contribs) 13:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See below.  -- JackofOz (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating this page post-election 

message: In the Opposition Years section, the article currently says the following...
:During the 2001 election campaign, Howard stated:
:I don't think it is wrong, racist, immoral or anything...
He actually made that statement in 1988, as the reference indicates. Maybe the lead-in line should just say: "During the same month, Howard stated:" As the article is locked, I can't change it. Requires an Admin. Thanks, Lester 14:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made that change. Thanks, Lester 12:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1988 error requires admin to change

message: Just a couple of minor points need changing, but the page is protected, so I can't do it myself.  Perhaps an administrator may like to do it instead.
1. The table at the bottom showing political offices and the like needs updating to reflect that John Howard is no longer the incumbent in some of these offices, and his successor for a couple of the offices is now known.
2. In the section near the end, "The 2007 election campaign", in the text reading "The Australian Prime Minister", the word "The" should be lower-cased to "the": it is not the beginning of a sentence, and the word "The" is not part of the name of the office.
Thanks. M.J.E. (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed #2. My understanding is that Howard is PM until he returns the Letters of Commission to the GG - see Prime Minister of Australia#Appointment, so I'm incline to leave things as they are until all is official. Banno (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor changes needed. 

message: Does Howard use the “SSI” postnominal?  I’ve never seen it used apart from here.  The only thing I can find about the award is this, which tells us next to nothing.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-added it, at least provisionally, since there's a citation in the article saying that he and Helen Clark of NZ both got them for their work in restoring law and order in the Solomons. The fact that there's no article on the award itself is a bit of a shame, but he does appear to be one of the people who have received it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it again. No-one is questioning whether or not the award exists, but whether or not "SSI" is a formal post-nominal for that award. In the absence of supporting evidence, the post-nominal (not the award) should be removed. --Brendan [ contribs ] 06:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Star of the Solomon Islands

message: Maxine McKew has formally claimed victory for the seat of Bennelong. (Sydney Morning Herald). I think it is now appropriate to reflect this in the article's introduction.--Lester 22:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read that article, you'll see she has stopped short of formally claiming victory.  She did appear to claim victory, but later corrected herself to say it was still too close to call.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maxine McKew has claimed victory 

message: If Howard loses his seat, which seems likely at this point, he will have set the record as the longest serving PM to be defeated. However, does anybody know, if will have set the record:
* as the longest ever serving member to be defeated?
* as the longest serving member of the same seat to be defeated?
* as the oldest member to be defeated?
etc. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hazard a guess that the answer to all three questions is Sir Earle Page.  He was second only to Billy Hughes in the longest-serving stakes (and Hughes was never defeated); he held Cowper for his entire 42-year parliamentary career (a record for holding a single seat); and he died at age 81, having just been defeated in the 1961 election (although he went into a coma before the election and died a couple of weeks later, never knowing he'd been defeated).  I'm not 100% sure about the last one; there may have been older members than 81, but I doubt it. --  JackofOz (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Billy Hughes held four seats from 1901 to 1952, as well as 7 years prior to 1901 in colonial parliament. Timeshift (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Records set 

message: This is text someone else added to the article (not me) but it was recently deleted, and I think it's at least worth discussing before deleting. The text:
:After the Howard Government's 2007 Federal election defeat, former workplace minister, Joe Hockey, conceded that the Work Choices legislation went too far with its reforms. He said:
:"The problem with Work Choices was we just went too deep. It was a mistake. That's one of the reasons why, when I became the minister we started the fairness test. We should never have got rid of the old no-disadvantage test in the original package, that was a mistake."
Here's a reference, in case anyone needs to copy & paste it:

The comment in the edit box from the deleting editor said:
"I don't think this is a fair criticism. Obviously everyone in the Liberal party is blaming each other for the election defeat. Wait for historical perspective b4 analysing the meaning of the electn".
Anyone care to comment? Is Hockey's criticism worthy of inclusion in the article? --Lester 05:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well "concede" is definitely not NPOV.  I think it probably emphasizes one element excessively, though: interest rates, climate change, international relations, and a general "mood for change" were definitely also factors.  Better off collecting verifiable sources that suggest all of the above.  Plus also it may be more relevant in the Australian federal election, 2007 article, though obviously some mention here is worthy.  Kelvinc (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't only Joe Hockey who said Work Choices was a mistake. I think about 3 prominent frontbench MPs have said similar things since the election defeat.Lester 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Needs ultimately to be included in some form, but rather than attribute specifically to Hockey, it might be better to indicate that "members of the defeated government and analysts of the 2007 election loss argued that the introduction of the Work Choices legislation package was probably instrumental in the Howard government's defeat..." or similar, Then cite the Hockey source, but also others as appropriate. And yes, "conceded" is definitely not NPOV. While it may take a while for a full analysis of the defeat to emerge and become 'stable', there seems no doubt that Work Choices will be central to that analysis, so I do think it is appropriate to include some observation re this at this stage. Yes, as per Kelvinc, 2007 election page is main location for this material, but must be some mention here, particular re factors explaining defeat over which PM had some control (such as Work Choices, stance on climate change) hamiltonstone (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workchoices dead 

message: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/24/2098414.htm?site=elections/federal/2007 - interesting page that might serve a purpose as a source. Timeshift (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look very accurate to me. It claims the Tampa came in 2000. Wasn't it 2001? --Lester 20:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed, 2001.  But on a quick read I couldn't see any other errors.  --  JackofOz 21:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Winston Howard - a timeline 

message: Timeshift 07:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe in a week or so? Banno 08:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we trial the removal of all page protections? 

message: The Economic Management section previously contained both praise of the government's economic policy as well as criticism of the policy. Both arguments were presented, as Wikipedia policy encourages. However, recently the criticism was deleted, but the praise retained. Here's the diff. The reference attached to the criticism was from conservative commentator Paul Kelly writing in The Australian newspaper. Would other editors care to comment about this deletion?.Lester 21:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the section is imbalanced, it needs fixing. There is much that could be written (see Talk:John Howard/Archive 7#Economic Management section for references and further discussion). I agree it must not be allowed to be reverted back to a "glory statement", and that an emphasis on (demonstrated relevance to) Howard is essential. If that cannot be achieved, deletion of that section would not be objectionable. --Brendan [ contribs ] 13:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic management 

message: With Rudd sworn in and Howard no longer Prime Minister, protections are no longer necessary. Please have these removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.178.83 (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection no longer necessary 

message: I thought you would win  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.239.98 (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howard  

message: I see the article now opens with the line that John Howard is a former politician. Is this appropriate? Other former prime ministers are still referred described as "a politician" (not a former one). Lester 23:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend following established styles and if other PMs follow this practise, than I agree.  Also it makes more sense when you think about it.  Shot info (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pauline Hanson is still described as "a politician". Why not Howard? That's his profession. Someone is still an author, even though they may not have written any books for years. Lester 23:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, and I agree with your arguements and I agree with your recommendations, just in case you missed it :-)  Shot info (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only an issue with living former PMs.  Looking at the other living Australian ex-PMs: Malcolm Fraser is described as "a politician", Gough Whitlam is "a former politician", and Bob Hawke and Paul Keating make no mention of it at all.  (I haven't checked on the dead ex-PMs but I assume we say "was", which is fine.)  If we're going to make these consistent, I'd prefer "former politician".  I don't like the analogy with authors.  Authors, composers, painters and others never retire - they go on till they die.  But politicians do retire; they might not leave public life entirely, but they're certainly retired from politics.  If an ex-PM decided to run for Parliament again (Gorton and others tried; and Bruce was re-elected), then they'd resume their status as "politician" or "parliamentarian".  Howard is certainly not a parliamentarian any longer, so how can he still be a politician?  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "former politician" is appropriate because he has retired. Pauline Hanson is a special case because she keeps re-running unsuccessfully for office. I'm not sure how to describe Hanson, but that doesn't affect the fact that Howard is definitely "former" (or soon will be once he's cleared his office out). Peter Ballard (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JackOfOz mentions (above) that the Hawke and Keating articles don't start by saying "he is a former politician". Maybe that information is redundant for Prime Ministers. I guess if the article says "he is a former Prime Minister of Australia", we don't need to also say "he is a former politician". Maybe the answer is leave it out altogether! Lester 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that suggestion.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Leave it out. Same goes for the postnominal 'MP' after the name in the lead sentence of BLPs for active politicians. It just aint necessary. That context is already sufficiently clear from the lead narrative. Also don't need to use the qualifier "former" if the tense is correct (eg. was a politician). --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a definition of the word politician from dictionary.com. A seeker or a holder of public office. So, the person's intent plays a role. Hanson intended to hold public office. I would say that fits the common accepted meaning. However, that dictionary also says "an expert in politics", which could mean anyone! Lester 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  Our politician article says much the same thing.  Does this mean we have to now apply the label to Kroger, Mundine et al?  Take a person like Greg Combet - he's a politician now, but prior to him being endorsed for Charlton, would anyone have called him that?  He certainly publicly supported Labor and publicly worked against Howard's Work Choices and other issues, while Sec of the ACTU, so he'd meet the criteria we use ("active in party politics").  I think there's scope here for misleading our readers.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It might be the case that a person doesn't get the label "politican" in the eyes of the public until they've been elected; even if they're later defeated, but keep on trying to get back in, they would still be considered one - Hansen is the classic case.  Lots of people tried and failed before their first successful attempt - Hawke, Howard, and Barry Jones come to mind.  They were never described as politicians until their first successful attempt to be elected.  Which would explain why Michael Kroger, who's had a few goes at getting pre-selected but has never got past that point, is never described as a politician, despite meeting the criteria in our article.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Howard be called a "former politician"? 

message: There's been a bit of edit warring, after the Monarchy was placed in the infobox window. Rather than conduct another discussion here, I point people towards 2 existing discussions, at Talk:Kevin_Rudd and Talk:WikiProject Australian politics. Thanks, Lester 04:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Include Wikipedia: WikiProject Biography aswell. Also, will the edit-war over inclusion/exclusion please stop (for now), we don't need this article locked, do we? GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarchy added to infobox 

message: The article states that Coalition loss was the equal third biggest electoral defeat by an incumbent government. Where is the reference for this? Even if it is true, I question the significance of this statement as federal governments change very rarely, particularly in modern times.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveller12 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the very rarity of these events means that, when they do happen, they are inherently notable and significant?  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's the 5th largest, and then only by number of seats. I suspect there may be bigger ones pre-1949 when there were less seats. In fact, it's the smallest electoral defeat of an incumbent government since 1972. IOW, it's not very notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're looking at 2pp, then yes the Howard, Hawke and Fraser governments achieved higher. However if you look at the 2pp swing, it was the largest since the dismissal, and 1969. This is the third largest since formal 2pp records began in 1949. Timeshift (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 09:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it should be reworded in terms of swing in the 2PP vote. Currently it is worded in terms of seats. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even then it should be noted the Latham effect on prior results. Allowing for this is was only a 3% swing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardflude (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Records - no quote 

message: I'm just curious to see where this pic is actually from as currently there doesn't seem to be any source information for it.  After all, it could really be of anybody without the references to back it up.  Lester?  Anybody else?  Shot info (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm wondering about that too. Has Lester been rummaging through the bins at Kirribilli House? Or did he just photoshop something up? Even if the story isn't quite as exciting as that, it still needs to be told. --Pete (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really mind where it did come from, but really the photo could be of anybody unless there is an RS to tell us it is JH.   PS:  Pete, chill with the sarcasm for the moment...ok?  Shot info (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obvious it will be removed unless the source is stated, so i'll add to the image what the uploader informed me of. Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: probably a scan from the recent Bio-book Lester referred to still needs to state the source. Gnangarra 00:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added what Lester told me. I don't know if theres an archived version of the site somewhere. Timeshift (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of JH as a boy

message: If (at talk: Kevin Rudd) we're not going to come to a conclusion on PM infoboxes content, we may aswell put them back as they were (for now). There's no need for this article & the Kevin Rudd article to be different from the rest of the Aussie PM infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus seems to be non-existant when it comes to Australian Prime Ministers (well, consensus that everyone recognises). Timeshift (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's even worse when there is consensus, but one side doesn't seem to want to accept or recognise it which makes the consensus pointless and goes back to square 1. Stalemate indeed. Timeshift (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which would imply that there isn't a consensus :-).  FWIW, I'm starting to see that consistency is something the Community is reluctant to adopt, so in lieu of that, my default position is simplicity - ie/ keeping the infoboxes to a minimum relevant to the subject of the article rather than the position (ie/ PM) the subject occupies.  While this isn't my preferred position, it allows for the maximum wriggle room for everybody :-)  ie/ lets just get consensus on an article by article basis - like what we do throughout the project.  Shot info (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PM infobox