Talk:John Howard/Archive 3

message: John "the penis" Howard?? It sounds wrong to me. Is this some kind of joke>
:Feel free to snip it. Or better yet, roll it back. Obviously this is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and while there's a few who scrawl graffiti on the wall, you are blessed with a magic rubber. --Pete 02:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MISTAKE 

message: hey this page is vandalised an awful lot, i mean every second time i check this page, it has been vandalised,maybe it should be locked..maybe not the vandalism is pretty funnny lol
nasrmg 20:30pm, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:I agree. Everytime I come to this page there is a new picture of John Howard. I have just changed the picture to his official parliamentry image. People should just leave it alone.Mattrix18 04:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got to wonder, what are the motivations of some editors? The replacement of a decent free image with a negative one, the replacement of a free image with one that isn't — really, what's going on here? michael talk 04:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: Can we please get a lock on the article, with it's daily vandalisms, it's quite obvious he is the man people love to hate, even online. Timeshift 06:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to semi-protection? Andjam 09:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only been wikipeding for a few months so i'm not familiar with the term, but the one where only established members can edit the article.Timeshift 13:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My reading of the page - including the footnoted email by Jimbo Wales - is that John Howard is a very good candidate for semi-protection Rocksong 08:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then list it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. If another admin chooses to semi-protect, I won't object. Banno 10:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can't we just ban Peter Costello's IP? Albatross2147 13:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately not; he is an experienced sock-puppet. Banno 23:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice all the references that politically damage the government were mystereriously slipped out during the last vandalism raid. A cynic would be suspicious of so called operatives. This page needs a vandalism lock. Timeshift 16:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So request one. Banno 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism Lock

message: According to Stay in Touch in the SMH recently, Howard's family actually owned a chain of at least 2 petrol stations.  Does anyone still have the article?  Regards, Ben Aveling 09:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A petrol station? 

message: I changed "has been subsequently re-elected in the elections of 1998, 2001 and 2004, making Howard the most electorally successful Prime Minister since Sir Robert Menzies" to "has been subsequently re-elected in the elections of 1998, 2001 and 2004, making Howard the longest serving Prime Minister since Sir Robert Menzies".  As of 2006, Howard has won four consecutive elections.  Bob Hawke also won four consecutive elections, in 1983, 1984, 1987 and 1990.  John Howard has spent more time in the top job, so I changed the line to reflect this.  If he wins in 2007, then he'll be the most electorally successful. I elliot 11:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point of this observation.  The Liberals have outnumbered the ALP in terms of parliamentary seats in their own right for a while.  The victories of Howard have emphatically *not* been won by the National Party - a party whose electoral clout is on the level of the Greens or thereabouts. Slac speak up! 09:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Electorally Successful?

message: I can't believe this news story has been undeleted not once but twice. As an overview of JWH's life it is totally out of place. Being in the news is not sufficient for a story to be included in Wikipedia: Howard is in the news every single day. Delete it, I say. Rocksong 06:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some kid hugged John Howard 

message: A kid hugged Howard.  That's it?  That's all?  Thirty two years in parliament, and ten of those in the top job, and this is all you can come up with as far as Noteworthy events and incidents go?  Howard is Australia's second longest serving PM, and that was all you could find? That's not encyclopedic, that's a disgrace.  Does anyone else recognise the absurdity of this?    This should be deleted right away. I elliot 06:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noteworthy events and incidents 

message: I deleted the following: "his government delivering in the last 10 years better living conditions than at any time in Australian history, largely due to his government's strong economic policy".  Now, I am no Professor of Economics (i.e. not Hewson), but an equally convincing argument exists, that the strong economic growth shown by the Australian economy was due to a significant increase in economic activity and associated infrastructure building in China, which in turn increased the demand for energy and mining exports. I elliot 08:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Speaking of article length, the section "For as long as the party wants me or two terms in office?" can (IMHO) be substantially shortened now he's made his position clear. I also think the section title should be changed to something less cryptic and less POV, like "Retirement Speculation". Rocksong 07:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this section could be deleted altogether. Sid 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retirement? 

message: In 1939 (when John Howard was born, and presumably named) Winston Churchill was a backbencher with an extremely spotty political career behind him. He did not become Prime Minister until Chamberlain resigned and Lord Halifax declined the position in May 1940, at which time John Howard was several months old. Do we have a reliable source for the reason behind this name or is it ill-founded supposition? --Jumbo 23:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Churchill was quite a major politician, even if he had not been PM yet (think John Howard in 1994 or Bob Hawke in 1982, perhaps?). Still, the idea that he was named after Churchill can easily morph from "educated guess" to "fact". So I say remove it in the absence of a citation. Rocksong 00:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Winston is a family name that was historically peculiar to the Churchill family. When Howard was born there were no other famous Winston's from that family - or any other family - that his parents are likely to been aware of. Winston Churchill had already enjoyed a distinguished 40+ year political career before becoming Britain's wartime PM, and as the author of the Gallipolli campaign in WW1 was well known in Australia. All of this points very strongly to his being the inspiration for the choice of Howard's middle name - but short of asking Howard's parents themselves it's impossible to be 100% certain. --Centauri 12:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We must have a reliable source before we can state something as a fact. Perhaps the source of the name is available in a biography? --Jumbo 16:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winston? 

message: I changed "The Senate blocked or delayed much of the Government's legislation" to "The Senate blocked or delayed much of the Government's more controversial legislation".  Before the Government gained control of the Senate Labor and the minor parties only rejected just over 2% of proposed bills.  --Daniel 15:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senate blocking legislation 

message: I don't know why the vandal block is removed a few days after being added, expecting the vandalism to decrease. It's quite obvious that not a day will go by without Howard's page being vandalised until he is no longer prime minister... and even then I'm sure it will continue for some time. IMHO we need the vandal lock to be permanent. Timeshift 05:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Request was denied. Rocksong 02:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The time to exposure is not the problem to me. The biggest problem is that in my experience articles do not develop when the only activity on them is vandalism and reversion. The time for vandalism on Steve Irwin is low yet it is still protected because people actually want to improve Wikipedia without nuisance edits. Ansell 03:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguments on both sides of course. Howard is a difficult subject anyway. The vandalism maybe relates to this inherent difficuly, i.e. controversial nature of the subject. The article, is probably a little too big and sprawls all over the place. Probably few are happy with it but also probably it does develop, although not as fast as we would like sometimes. --Wm 03:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued vandal lock and unlock 

message: Does anyone know whether Howard said Australia could be the U.S. deputy sheriff in the region in 2000 or whether he was misquoted or lead into the remark? The term has dogged him for years and came up in the news again on Sept. 7. If true, it seems like a telling detail that belongs in this article.
Googling the ABC site can be useful. It seems that an interviewer, rather than Howard himself, used the phrase in 1999.
7.30 Report, 27-9-99;
7.30 Report, 28-9-99  Rocksong 05:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deputy Sheriff 

message: What happened to it? Timeshift 17:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A puzzle. Adam Carr went to some trouble a while back to allow use of images from the parliamentary site. It should be easy enough to upload another copy, using the same sort of permissions. Unless someone has gone through and deleted every similar image, that is, in which case we may have a problem. I'll look into it. --Jumbo 22:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm still puzzled. I uploaded a pic from AUSPIC and used the  template, gave it the right name, and the article now has another image of John Howard. Click on the photo in the article and you'll see what I mean! Oh well, it's a good photograph of the right guy, so WP is saved for another day. --Jumbo 23:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the PM/opp leader pictures look unbalanced on Australian federal election, 2007 :-\ Timeshift 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've uploaded a new version of "johnhoward.jpg". For some reason the Reps photo "Johnhoward.jpg" which I uploaded this morning over-rides the other one, even if I carefully type the name in without capitals. So the new picture is "John_Howard_with_Flag.jpg". This fixes up the election article. --Jumbo 05:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm taking down the replacement lead photograph. Petaholmes, you surely cannot be serious! It's not that good a photograph, it shows him in front of a U.S. flag, and it's a U.S. government photograph. We should be using an Australian government photograph. --Jumbo 06:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the "US Flag" image with another free image from the same source. I don't like it much, compared with AUSTPIC and fair use images, but it's better than the previous one, which might be seen as POV. --Jumbo 06:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Latham also appeared with some US flags in the background once. That wasn't a very good indication of his attitude towards the "legacy of the White Australia policy". Andjam 09:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The current picture is awful. He's the Prime Minister, surely there's a better picture than that. MickBarnes 13:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, even though I happen to find it amusing :-) Timeshift 13:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current picture: John_Howard_official12354.jpg is his official picture according to the PRIME MINISTERS website: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/photo_gallery/index.html , people are changing it to pictures that are unflattering. It isn't very NPOV Mattrix18 11:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JH's pic

message: Hi,  I've removed this template: 
If we add it, we should also add all the other years, and I don't think that's appropriate.  Regards, Ben Aveling 06:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok... We don't have to add it to his profile... its all good! - peads 00:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  APEC 

message: I was just wondering whether or not it is worth making mention of the fact that Howard is a self-described cricket tragic. Given that he has made it clear, on a great many occasions that his only passion outside of politics is cricket, I think it is definitely worth mentioning, as a way of providing more background information about and to humanise the man. 
I recall him saying during his interview that his one dream was to captain the Australian cricket team, and although that won't happen, he visits cricket matches whenever possible, and has even done a spot of commentating on several occasions.
What do you think?
There's a story from a Nine reporter which mentions Howard's fanaticism for cricket here. 
::Deleted the fact Howard is an Australian politician.  This should be explicitly obvious as he is Prime Minister.  This is the same reason why it says that Ricky Ponting is Australian captain, and doesn't mention he's a cricketer.I elliot 08:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love of cricket 

message: Something needs to be added regarding the republic debate. It was a huge issue at the time.
:There's already a whole article at Australian republic referendum, 1999, though I agree there should be some mention, and a link, in the JH article, Rocksong 12:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Republic Referendum

message: I've never heard this term in my life in a non-satirical reference - suggest the Prime Minister's wife etc - comments? Danlibbo 11:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an Americanisation that has never caught on here. Prime Minister's wife is far more common, and should be used here. Rebecca 11:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree totally.  Until such time as we have a female PM, whose husband (if she had one) would be "the Prime Minister's husband".  JackofOz 11:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Or the PM is bi/homosexual, unmarried, or plurally married) Why list spouse at all in an infobox about a prime minister? We'd be describing someone based on what their spouse is. That may be the norm in some countries but it is fairly uncommon in Australia. Andjam 09:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definately the norm in encyclopediae Danlibbo 23:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Lady of Australia? 

message: While the recently reverted anon's edits were POV, it is probably time to update the issues of the day.  I've had a first cut at it.  Please to refactor mercilessly.  Thanks, Ben Aveling 08:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current events 

message: I believe a small bit of the article should cover this issue.
Here are some reasons why:
*Global warming / Climate Change is the number one concern of Australians today as shown in recent polls (see recent Reports on The ABC's Lateline program).
*JH's coalition has (against the wishes of the majority of the public and importantly all other political parties) significantly affected the global momentum on dealing with climate change by preventing the USA from becoming isolated as the only nation in the world to reject Kyoto. Had he not chosen this action the pressure on USA politicians as well as the public debate there would probably have been significantly affected. "We are the only nation not to..." focuses the media's attention much better than "We are one of the two nations in the world the other one being..." and the power of the media in modern western societies can not be overstated. An issue's media friendliness can make the difference between decades of neglect and instant action by the entire world community (see: slow developing African famines vs. Indian ocean tsunami with video footage to boot!)
*JH is an expert politician even his opponents (me included) find it difficult not to succumb to his ability to present himself as a perfect centrist who understands both sides while all the time pushing essentially the right's agenda. the reason I mention this is that it is quite a rare talent among his colleagues and few others would have succeeded in going  against public sentiment on global warming. thus it is possible that his abilities may have afforded him the power to make decisions which others in his place would have been unable to make. In this sense this may be one of the greatest differences his existence in the world has upon that world, as few of his other stances and policies were as distant from the mainstream of public sentiment or as potentially significant. 
*It is possible, though unlikely, but still possible that the small difference which he has personally made and will continue to make in slowing the international reaction to climate change causes huge amount of suffering and death in the next few decades across the world. There is even a tiny tiny chance that global warming passes a critical point and a runaway greenhouse effect is caused during the time in which his influence on world affairs could have prevented such a catastrophe. The chance of this scenario is miniscule but its consequence is (to put it mildly) unpleasant.
Ok so lets put it all together:
A politician’s place in history and his own personal abilities have put him in a position to wager the lives of all human-beings on a 9999999/10000000 bet that global warming wont reach a critical point, with the prize being the support of his nation's coal mining industry and the cost the possible fate of civilization. 
If this fact is not mentioned in his biography (even as a passing reference) then that biography is less than complete
That's how it seems to me anyway    :)
Burnt-sienna 03:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe - but either it has to be deleted in a short while anyway or there should be a section on all those previous 'attitudes' that he's masterfully navigated his way through eg 'sorry', asylum seekers, gst etc (but yeah - your second last point is worthy - he is an amazing politician) Danlibbo 23:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with your arguments that John Howard's role in obstructing real change in the area of human responses to global warming is exceptionally significant and should be mentioned. Only some very dodgy "global warming skeptics" now oppose the scientific consensus on the human contribution to global climate change. In my view as a scientist, they are in the same class as those who think that HIV does not cause AIDS, that CFCs don't affect the ozone layer, or flat Earthers (yes, there are still some of them around!). The potential damage from global warming is truly staggering as pointed out recently in the Stern Report. Why don't you try drafting a short section on it so that people can see how it might look in context in the article. Remember, it is best to be bold! If you do make a contribution, don't be put off by certain people jumping in and immediately accusing you of "vandalism" or "vexatiousness" with no real discussion, as happened to me recently when I made some changes to this article. Danlibbo, "maybe" is rather fence-sitting, don't you think? And I am not sure what you mean by "either it has to be deleted in a short while anyway or there should be a section on all those previous 'attitudes' that he's masterfully navigated his way through eg.....". Why would it have to be deleted in a short while? If anything, doesn't the evidence indicate that it will increase in importance as time passes? And if Howard's role in this is indeed exceptionally significant, doesn't that mean that it is worth mentioning, as opposed to, say, the GST, which I don't think anyone could argue is in the same league of importance as global warming? I would like to see some more NPOV discussion of this.   AussieBoy 06:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, a thousand times no. Issue-based sections in articles on politicians, especially those with as long and varied a career as Howard, are downright POV. By all means cover it fairly in a couple of sentences in the proper position, but there's no excuse for messing up the article on the strength of ones own opinion (albeit one I agree with). Rebecca 07:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John howard's attitude towards and policies on global warming 

message: I have amended the material concerning the recording of Howard's appearance on this show to make it more NPOV. I added this material previously but it was removed as "vandalism".  I argue that it is POV to say that Howard "delights" the audience, but NPOV to say that he "amuses" the audience, since we can hear the audience laughing, but have no other relevant information. The previous version also gives the markedly POV impression that Howard's appearance was an unqualified success. In fact, Howard got all of the answers wrong, and this needs to be stated to make the material more NPOV. Indeed, it appears to be the case that Howard's succession of wrong answers is part of what amuses the audience. Here is full transcript of the recording:
Davey: John Buchan wrote a book about some steps. How many steps?
Howard: Seven.
Davey: Seven. Seven. He must have skipped a few.  Thirty-nine it is. Goodbye,  John. Nice knowing you.
Davey: What do you do for a living?
Howard: Oh, I still go to school,  Canterbury Boys’ High School. 
Davey: Allright. That’s your last year is it? [boos from audience]. Who are they?
Howard: That’s just me (sic) brother. He went to Canterbury too and… 
Davey: Oh he did, eh?
Howard: He’s got a wife down there with him too. She didn’t go to Canterbury.
Davey: She didn’t, ah…
Davey: In botany, a tree whose leaves fall in autumn is called a what-sort-of  tree?
Howard: A shedding tree.
Davey: I could not look you straight in the face, John, and say that it was not a shedding tree, because there it is busily shedding. So therefore it is. It’s called a deciduous tree, but you’ve got the right idea
Davey: What is a mezzanine floor?
Howard: A what?
Davey: Well, where do you find a mezzanine floor?
Howard: Aw, on the floor of a a house in an, aw, in an Eastern country.
Davey: You mean a, a harem.
Howard: How do you know?
Davey: What is a loch?
Howard: Oh, it’s the name of a mountain in Scotland.
Davey: Yes, well it is actually. If they hadn’t dug out the loch, there wouldn’t be a mountain. That’s thirty packets you’ve got now.
Davey: Er, mimosa,  what’s  mimosa? 
Howard:  Oh, it’s the name of a..a sort of native tribal dance.
Davey: This fella would have the most colossal imagination I have ever heard! A tribal dance! I don’t know whether he’s right or wrong, but if he’s making these up, he’s not bad. It’s another  name for wattle.
Davey: How many people , ah, does it take to make a tête-à-tête?  
Howard: Tête-à-tête? (Howard sounds very puzzled).
Davey: What is the unusual characteristic of a Kiwi?
Howard: It’s got a..a…
Davey: No it hasn’t!
Howard: Ah, ah,  it’s on the face of a tin of boot polish.
Davey: Remember, plenty of work and not too much tête-à-tête and everything will be fine.
AussieBoy 00:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: he's surely improved his debating style since eh? Danlibbo 01:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd amend the section further. Howard doesn't trade unscripted humour - the host throws unscripted humour at him and makes him sound like a bit of a fool. Interesting historically, but not very flattering for Howard, contrary to what the article says. I'd just say that a recording of a young JWH exists, give the link, and leave it at that. Rocksong 01:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was me, a rabid Howard hater, that added the Davey show reference originally, which I did without any intention of irony (really).  When I heard the recording being played (several times) on Richard Glover's show I thought the way JWH conducted himself was OK hence the "delights". It is only when you read the transcript so thoughtfully provided above that you realise what a twerp he is being. Then as now, he is clearly out of touch. (Memo to self - stop trying to be fair) Albatross2147 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Davey radio quiz show 

message: Where did the bit about the landholdings in PNG come from? Is there any evidence for this? I have known a fair few blokes who did fight in PNG (one who won an MC) and they didn't get granted any land. Albatross2147 02:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all true and all fact. However, its inclusion is vexatious; why would the small business dealings of Howard's parents have any impact on his life or career? They are non-notable and irrelevant to the man himself. michael talk 03:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Having read Marr's article, my response is "Huh?". Marr himself even concedes it's not clear whether Howard's parents benefited from the investment. Is Wikipedia going to document every dodgy investment by every famous person's parents? Delete it, I say. Rocksong 05:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a left wing voter and I even think it's not relevant..unless there can be evidence found that he has land interest in PNG and some correlation to policy regarding PNG (area where land is situated)..if not..then remove the reference --Mikecraig 05:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Albatross, the bit about the landholdings is correct. It appears that you did not read the reference I supplied. This section already existed but needed correction (the matter related to World War I, not II as previously stated) and clarification, and required a reference. I happened to be aware that the Marr article is the original source of this information. Howard's father and grandfather did not fight in New Guinea-that was World War II. And it wasn't a land grant. Again, please read the Marr article. The point was that as former soldiers, the Howards were able to buy the land on 15% deposit, with the reminder paid off over 20 years, whereas W.R. Carpenter and Co.would have required 30% deposit with the remainder paid off over only 10 years. Thus, it was in their interest to get people like the Howards to act for them for payment. The article makes it clear that the Howards did not have the large sums of money required. Michael, please do not accuse me of being vexatious, nor of vandalism, as you have done previously.  Please give adequate and NPOV consideration to other people's work. Rocksong, Marr does indeed provide some evidence that the Howards received at least some money from the arrangement, although it is unclear how much in total. It appears reasonable to infer that it was quite a lot, given that the dealings themselves involved very large sums at that time (if you think not, I would like to know what your reasons are). The land dealings came to a formal end in 1962, long after Howard's father and grandfather had died, so Howard would have been aware of them.  As Marr says "Strangely, these plantations never seem to feature in the Prime Minister's repertoire of stories about the ethos of his family. In February this year, launching a book that celebrates his 10 years in office, John Howard once more harked back to the role of the garage in forming his fundamental values. He was myth-making again. "The whole idea of doing something with your life was about personal achievement, and starting a business. That has influenced my attitude, because my father had a garage … I guess working for yourself, working for private enterprise, and not working for the government, was something I was brought up to believe in." That's one version, but as always in politics, real life is more human, more complex and more interesting than myth." I personally think that Marr has shed important light on matters related to the values of the Howard family, which John Howard himself has opened up to critique by talking about them publicly.  I believe that this section should stand. If my arguments above cannot adequately be met, I believe it would be reasonable to reinsert this section.  I look forward to further talk on this subject. 202.161.9.214 09:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it still lacks any real relevance to the article - put it in an article about his folks Danlibbo 23:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides I fail to see how it means Howard is mythmaking. It's still true that his father ran a garage. The PNG deal reads to me like a dodgy but legal arrangement (made years before John was even born) which made the Howards a little money. So what? Rocksong 23:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am new to this, so perhaps I am missing something. This section was previously present in the article, but contained an error and lacked the appropriate reference. No one had objected to its presence at that point. I corrected it, amended it, and added the original reference. Then suddenly, it "lacks relevance" and I am accused, inappropriately in my view, of being "vexatious" by a person who had previously accused me of "vandalism", again without basis. Those who criticized the new version made a number of specific errors, which I pointed out above in detail. Surely the nature of these errors vitiates the criticisms-wouldn't it be necessary to actually read the reference to be able to make an informed judgement? I also advanced a specific argument about the relevance of the material. I do not see how this can be countered by simply restating that it lacks relevance, without actually dealing in detail with the argument I advanced--isn't that what one should do? I do believe that this material is relevant, and that many people of a variety of political persuasions would be interested in this aspect of the Howard family business dealings. How come the family petrol station and mechanical workshop business is "relevant" but the family's perhaps slightly dubious business dealings in another area are not? I cannot help feeling that some people might prefer that what some may think of as slightly awkward truths about a political figure like Howard are best omitted. Personally, I don't think that this is good enough. AussieBoy 00:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (Answering AussieBoy) It's not about covering awkward truths, it's about being relevant. The deals were done by his parents, not him, and mostly before he was even born. All the article needs (if anything) is a brief description of his family background. Their occupation is a central part of this; details of their investments I would suggest are not. And I've answered the mythmaking charge: it's not a myth that his dad owned a garage, and besides (contrary to what Marr says) I don't think Howard goes out of his way to mention it much anyway. But I can't be bothered arguing this so I'll just go with the consensus. Rocksong 11:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a consensus and there's no point wasting any more time on this silly issue. The original article was simply a dirt peice of no relevance to Howard himself (how can minor business investments of someone's parents be notable in an article about them?). AussieBoy, please use paragraphs for easy reading. michael talk 13:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't consider myself right-wing, and I'm no Howard supporter. The quote at the PM's website is under the heading "Did you know??", and contains little-known facts, such as some of his school achievements. So it actually illustrates the opposite to what you say - that his petrol station heritage is little known. So I still dispute that it is an often-propagated Howard myth. So I think it's off-topic, but as indicated above I'm happy to go with the consensus. Rocksong 06:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yebbut Howards servo heritage is well known and often referred to. What may not be so well known is that he actually did some work about the place. My info is that as a rather spoilt after thought he did not often front for duty. Albatross2147 06:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Papua New Guinea Land Grab

message: I'm pretty sure the GST was never justified as a non-core promise. Non-core promises refered to promises they broke after the 1996 election, because they were supposedly "minor" or "non-core" issues. The GST was justified in an entirely different way: seeking a mandate at the 1998 election. Rather than sticking a  tag on it, I think the comment in the article should be removed until proven. Rocksong 00:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These news articles from 1998-2000 support what I said: http://www.abc.net.au/news/fed98/fed98/fe98-31aug1998-7.htm http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s24886.htm http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s126038.htm Rocksong 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-core promises and GST 

message: Around 4-Nov, the detail was put in that interest rates were 22% in 1982 when Howard was treasuer. I'm no economist, but it looks to me like the reference cited ( http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/Bulletin/F01Dhist.xls ) may be misleading. The reference shows the 90 day bank bill rate. Usually "Interest Rate" is taken to mean the official RBA cash rate. But the tables of cash rate at http://www.rba.gov.au/MonetaryPolicy/ appear to only go back to 1990. Can someone economically literate check to see whether the reference is correct? I'd ask the person who put it in, except it was an anonymous user. Rocksong 02:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You will need to provide a source for the mortgage rate in 1982. In any regard, the article needs to convey the general level of interest rates in Australia whilst Howard was treasurer. That is going to be difficult (and contentious) because there were various rates for different sectors of the economy at the time. While 22% may be at the top end of estimates for the period, the 13.5% you claim is certainly at the low end. Kewpid 08:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The source you provided only shows a small graph of the period in question, which can't be read precisely, but whatever, I'm not going to quibble. My concern was that focusing in on only the home lending rate was deliberately deceptive, considering the context of the paragraph was economic conditions and management whilst Howard was treasurer (home lending being a comparative minor part of the economy at the time). Now I was going to assume good faith on your behalf, but considering your unrelenting desire to be patronising, and your other edits to the article, I'm just going to assume bias. Let's see what others think. Kewpid 09:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Including the "22% interest rate" in the article is misleading, unless we go into a discussion on the various different interest rates, such as we see above, and this is quite inappropriate for a biographical article. However, it would make an excellent economic/banking article. --Pete 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interest Rates when Howard was Treasurer

message: Shouldn't this section preceded the section on his time as PM, rather than appearing as a subsection of the PM part of the article? --Peta 03:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1996 campaign

message: Is the myspace profile a joke, more suitable for uncyclopedia? Andjam 11:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, though quite a well done one. It snuck in on 8-nov. This is what happens when 90% of edits are undoing vandalism - subtle vandalism sometimes gets missed. Anyway, I'll delete it. Rocksong 03:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is another round of semi-protection the way to go? Andjam 03:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon so - way too much vandalism --Danlibbo 03:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myspace profile 

message: It is suggested that the subject's failure to enlist in the armed forces during time of war although a supporter of that war is relevant to an understanding of the subject's character and career. It is impossible to provide a citation for something that has not happened but some editors are insisting that that a note to the effect that the subject did not enlist must be backed by a citation. 12:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do other Howard biographers note his non-enlistment? If yes, then cite that biographer. If no, then for Wikipedia to make a point of it is Original Research, IMHO. Rocksong 23:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eric A. Warbuton wrote in the article history "if its good enough for bush and cheney on their entries to have it mentioned its good enough for howard". I disagree. For George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Wikipedia is simply reflecting what is out there in mainstream journalism  - criticism of their war (non) record. It should only go in the Howard article if his non-enlistment has generated discussion elsewhere. Otherwise it's Original Research. Rocksong 04:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Rocksong. If Wikipedia is the first to publish this point, then it is a novel synthesis i.e. WP:OR. If this point has been made elsewhere, then provide a citation. Hesperian 05:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, Albatross2147. But this wouldn't be the first time the Left counted its chickens a little early. Joestella 00:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is bizarre. WP is not the place to make POV points. If you can find a source for something that didn't happen, and it is relevant, then include it. Otherwise it's like saying that he never gained a pilot's licence, yet flies several times a week. BFD. Most young Australian men didn't join up for Vietnam. --Jumbo 02:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most didn't support it either Albatross2147 21:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Failure to enlist

message: Can people please stop putting finance minister in brackets after Treasurer?  For a start it is factually inaccurate as they are not the same in Australia.  When Howard was treasurer, the finance minister was Eric Robinson then Margaret Guilfoyle.  If international Wikipedians need this "explained" then they can click on the shiny blue link to the Treasurer article.  I elliot 11:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. Rocksong 12:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, so long as the relevant link is right there. Xtra 12:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  country-specific terms like Treasurer are completely incomprehensible in isolation to 99% of the non-country readership and should be banned from Wikipedia. Unfortunately Wikipedia is ruled by the 1% so I know that won't happen. PMA 13:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Wikipedia should always use the correct title - but then explain it if necessary. In the introduction, a quick explanation is tricky, thanks to the confusion added by the fact that in Australia "Finance minister" is something else entirely; so the link to Treasurer of Australia will have to do. In the body of the article, I think an explanation of the importance of Treasurer is in order. Rocksong 23:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK with me. PMA 05:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finance Minister

message: :While the AWB's bribes in Iraq have significantly damaged the government's reputation, each other major election issue has a significant connection to the Opposition's primarily working-class support base through either providing political support through the Coalition or providing more employment opportunities primarily in the form of increased uranium mining.
Some very vague claims here.  I don't know what they all mean, let alone if they are true.  Regards, Ben Aveling 00:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah - i guess the point is that the coalition is taking the fight to the alp - therefore reflects on howard's political talent --Danlibbo 05:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should probably include citations for these claims, particularly if their accuracy is uncertain. Walton monarchist89 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole sentence is POV garbage. The AWB thing isn't a major issue with the public, let alone any government connection. Increased uranium mining isn't a significant source of employment, now or in the future. Employment opportunities are a result of the booming economy, not any political decisions. (Though I am sure that Peter Costello would happily take the credit.) --Pete 13:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snipped from unfinished business