Talk:John Howard/Archive 5

message: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=17666 - nice picture... Timeshift 03:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this common?

message: Is there a reason why Kirribilli House and The Lodge aren't mentioned in the First term section? That was a significant issue then and still is in a way now his children are all adult. WikiTownsvillian 08:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I think it was minor compared to the points mentioned in that section, though something could be added. Peter Ballard 12:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Kirribilli House]]

message: Could we get a picture of him supporting the Socceroos wearing his green & gold tracksuit? Could we also get some statistics on where he jogs in the morning? Sven the llama 02:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: planning on a bit of stalking are you? :) WikiTownsvillian 03:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Um collecting statistics on where he jogs would be OR. If you want to do something like that, try a blog or something. And personally given the current climate in Australia I would take great care collecting something like that. Nil Einne 11:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tracksuit

message: This, in the light of recent events, deserves its own section.  I certainly don't feel up to writing it. . . Slac speak up!
:As is usually the case in this sort of thing, I suggest waiting a couple of weeks for perspective. On the other hand, it could be good to expand on his handling of it in his first 2 terms (Wik is hardly mentioned, though it does have its own article).  Peter Ballard 09:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indigenous affairs

message: Can someone get his signature, like they have for UK and USA leaders?
It's not a high priority. Slac speak up! 07:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Signature

message: John Howard is NOT a "Right Honourable". For some reason, "Prestor John" (who deleted my message last time I pointed this out) and "Socialdemocrats" (who added "Rt Hon" in the first place) seem to think that this is not true. I really don't want to register at Wikipedia, but I don't appreciate when I bring up a valid point that is deleted as "anon vandalism". This is why nobody takes Wikipedia seriously as a reliable source. John Howard is "The Hon John Howard". He IS NOT "The Rt Hon". It is a fact, get over it. The last PM to be "The Rt Hon" was Fraser, no other PM has been a member of Privy. I can't change this as the article is protected, so would somebody else?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.150.137 (talk • contribs) 
:As per my edit comment, done. Wikipedia, although not as accurate as it could be, can be improved by more editors ensuring it is correct. Join up and assist and it will be increasingly correct. It may not be fully correct, but is to some extent taken seriously, and in some cases is the only place to find the information. Template: Politics of Australia... AFAIK theres no other place on the web with a comprehensive federal election database like that. Timeshift 02:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rt Hon" 

message: I suggest adding a section dealing with the Youtube incident of July 2007, where John Howard's foray into the internet resulted in his being widely mocked and lampooned by the public Zzzzeta 01:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the page needs an update in general to include this as well as his recent troubles with the leadership including criticism from Fraser Costello and Hewson as well as those amusing words about lying from Howard's wife himself. Timeshift 03:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Fraser, Costello, Hewson and now his own wife are making him look bad. Interesting times. Timeshift 08:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above quote from Mrs Howard is hardly about lying. If anyone is trying to sway another, they talk about possibilities and potentials. Latham talked big about what he'd do as Prime Minister last election. Are those all lies? Get a grip. --Pete 04:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Youtube debacle

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:John_howard.jpg - I see it's from wikipedia commons, perhaps i'm not familiar enough with WC, but what is the source of this image exactly? A caption of John Howard in the USA in 1997 is a bit ambiguous... does anyone know what he was there for? Timeshift 03:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image source

message: Just how encyclopaedic is this? Take a look at Question Time - after a long lunch half the pollies will be at least slightly sozzled. Is Howard having a drink worthy of inclusion in a biographical article? Only, I suggest, if he took some sort of drunken action. Andrew Bartlett springs to mind. --Pete 04:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  It should be removed as not significantly important. Slac speak up! 04:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added a paragraph about the drunkeness. (See the previous discussion titled The team is ready to cleans Howards image). You can see the link to the previous version of the article -->04:20, 25 July 2007 Lester2 which has now been deleted. It is historically relevant that the man who is now Prime Minister of Australia once sat in parliament drunk. Even Howard himself has admitted to it, and every major newspaper in Australia is carrying the story. Lester2 04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also part of his recent biography and in the mainstream Australian media (not "tabloid/tattle"). During the coming days I am sure there will be additional information regarding this matter and I'm sure there will be notable/noteworthy info and statements relating to this topic. --Mikecraig 05:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see WP:UNDUE and consider how any given small paragraph in the article will cover a major topic like Tampa, Iraq, GST, firearms reform, election campaign and so forth. All of these topics were heavily discussed on a daily basis for 3-9 months (in the case of the GST, probably a year). Things like these usually took up about 25% of the serious news info for the given timespan. Are the serious broadsheets and ABC going to devote 25% of their news/current affairs for three months talking about a glass of wine? Certainly not, and at least 10X more time talking about Mohamed Haneef, who is not mentioned in the article. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not getting involved, lest to say that IIRC Prester John is an ex-Liberal MP. Timeshift 05:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder how many are actually paid to keep Howard's image clean on the Wiki. Anyway, nothing I've added is "gossip", as it is cited, and Howard himself admitted to the drunken incident. It's also one of the few anacdotes that gives a real insight into the feelings of the man himself. Howard has taken a tough line on alcohol, and on aboriginal people using alcohol, which makes the revelation of his own drunken episode incredibly relevant. It seems to take an average of 6 minutes for the Howard guardians to cleanse the article of cited newsworthy facts like this. Lester2 05:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, please see WP:UNDUE. I am not a Howard supporter. If you want to put in bad stuff, put in something worthwhile like HECS fees instead of this junk. I would have to say that Howard (and any other person) talks about alcohol in the sense of people engaging in bad behaviour as a result of this. If he drink drives, beats up his wife, abuses his children or behaves inappropriately then it would be notable. Wikipedia is not an anecdote farm. Anybody can be drunk and as long as they don't engage in bad behaviour or have a performance drop because of it then it is not relevant. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 05:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yet much more newsworthy stuff like the River Murray plan or the aboriginal intervention plan are not even mentioned. Things need to be relevant, not just cited. Peter Ballard 05:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For those Howard defenders who keep deleting the paragraph about Howard being drunk in Parliament, I don't think you really do your cause any good. The anecdote was just a curiosity that I don't think will do Howard any political damage, despite it being reported in every Australian newspaper. Instead, what you'll achieve is a Wiki article so clean of anything even slightly negative (or even colourful), that the article will look like it's obviously been "laundered". To  user 'Blnguyen' who sent me a private message threatening to have me banned, if that's what you wish to do, you are welcome to try :)  Lester2 06:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it won't. What is will do is damage Wikipedia, in the sense that people who look up John Howard will see it full of irrelevant news items, with some hugely important stuff missing. You seem to be assuming that every editor (except you, of course!) is politically motivated. Please, assume good faith, most of us just want to improve the quality of article. Peter Ballard 06:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The drinking episode adds a perspective to the leadership defeat to Peacock. The book says that Howard began drinking too much after his defeat to Andrew Peacock. It shows emotional stress. despair. How can that not be relevant? Lester2 07:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless we see some consensus here to keep it, it will keep on being deleted. Nobody disputes that it is accurate and sourced. It's just not notable. --Pete 16:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of comments (above) say that Howard's drinking habits are not relevant to anything. Let me put it a different way: Why should Howard be treated differently to anyone else? Here's some examples:  George W. Bush was drinking excessively before he entered politics. Andrew Bartlett was drinking excessively while in politics. And former PM John Gorton drank excessively after leaving politics. All of these people have it mentioned in their Wiki pages in much greater detail than John Howard's brief mention. Name a politician who was proven in some citable way to have drunk too much who doesn't have it mentioned in their Wiki page. Especially one who's policy is to take a hard line against alcohol (ie, prohibition of Aboriginal communities). The mention of alcohol in Howard's page is brief and it's relevant. Lester2 21:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We work on consensus here. Either convince a few editors other than yourself or stop wasting everyone's time, please. --Pete 00:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that link, 'Timeshift'. I wrote that Howard entered the House of Representatives chamber drunk. I was cautious not to say that he addressed Parliament drunk, as I wasn't sure if it was a verifiable enough fact. The News Ltd story you post seems to have been revised in later editions. But, now we don't have any mention of entering the chamber drunk (even though Howard admitted it), because it has been deleted. Lester2 03:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howard drunk at work 

message: I added the exact Howard quote from 1988 regarding his views on Asian Immigration. It's a brief but historical quote that allows readers a better understanding of the controversy of 1988. Within minutes, the quote was deleted multiple times by User:Skyring and again by User:Blnguyen, without reason given, so I will revert it yet again. It's one of the most famous quotes from JH himself, it is brief, so I don't see what the problem is. I suggest it's better to add to Wiki articles rather than spend the whole time deleting the referenced material that others have contributed. Here is the link to the article version with my contribution >>Version 147372141<< in case someone deletes it again, and others want to see what it was. Lester2 23:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the immigration and alcohol issues need to be separated. I've restored the immigration comments because it was a big issue at the time. I've also removed the comment that it weakened his position. I'm not convinced it did (sadly). Peter Ballard 04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To my mind, the quote should only be included if it is explained a little. As it stands, the quote is given on its own with no context except to say that it "created controversy". What controversy? Why did he say this? Who was upset? What happened as a result? And perhaps, why was it notable? It seems to me that at the moment it is just an attempt to get a cheap-shot that insinuates Howard is anti-asian into the article. --Yeti Hunter 07:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there has been a fair amount of "cheap-shotting" recently. However, I think that the quote is important, perhaps not necessarily in this article, but possibly in a more focussed article regarding race relationships in Australia. There's certainly a lot of material about, looking at increasing Asian immigration in the final quarter of the C20, Pauline Hanson, race riots and so on. Giving the quote to John Howard without a wider context isn't fair dealing. --Pete 20:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To 'Yetihunter'... I agree that more info could be added. There was a lot of controversy back in 1988, and that detail could be included. J.H. made a similar comment  on the John Laws radio program at that time, though I don't know of any transcripts. Then again, it was pretty hard to have this brief quote included, as it got deleted many times. To 'Skyring-Pete'... There is a mountain of material and quotes regarding racial issues from John Howard himself, enough to fill a separate Wiki article. To me, it's an important part of John Howard's history, and of our history (no matter whether we agree or disagree with what was said). A separate article about Howard's statements and policies about race would get around the problem of the present article's chronological order, as the quotes cover Howard's entire time in politics. I'd be willing to do the research and find the references (which would take a significant amount of work), but once again, I'm afraid that it would be deleted the second it is posted. Lester2 09:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote re: Asian Immigration 

message: This article lacks information about Howard's ethnic background and religious affiliation. Once these are added, then categories can be added in too, so that the ethnic and religious make up of Australia's politicians can be better covered. For a comparison, look at the article on Paul Keating. We learn that he has Irish ancestry and is a Catholic. It is not fair to say that readers would be correct in assuming that Howard is the 'default ethnicity' for Australians, which is Anglo Saxon Protestant, on the basis of a photo and his name, so therefore there is no need to state it, any more than readers would be left in the dark about these details in relation to someone with the name Keating (its a pretty well known Irish name, and most stereotypes about the Irish involve them being Catholics), so thus it needs to be stated. Biographical details like DoB, ethnic background/ancestry and religious affiliation are standard fare in an encyclopedia.Eyedubya 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His religious affiliation, such as it is, should probably be in the "early life" section. I don't think ethnicity should be, on the basis that it is rarely if ever remarked on. I would argue that ethnic background is not standard fare for an encyclopedia, unless it is unusual or notable. Most people care little about it, thankfully. Peter Ballard 07:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, would you argue that Keating's Irish ancestry is any more notable than whatever Howard's ancestry is? And why only in his early life section - didn't his belief in a god of some kind play an important role in his version of the 'preamble' for a republic? Also, when you say 'most people care little about it', what do you mean - about ethnicity in general, or that of John Howard? It would appear that you mean the former. What evidence do you have to support this assertion about the attitudes of 'most people'? - and which 'most' are you referring to? Australians? People from China? Africa? Europe? the USA? The majority of those with internet connections live outside Australia - how can you be so sure that they're not interested in the ethnicity of Australian Prime Ministers? Eyedubya 11:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keating, IIRC, went to Ireland while he was PM and visited an ancestor's grave. But beyond that. no, Keating's Irish ancestry is of limited interest too. By "most", I mean most news sources and articles about Howard (or for that matter Keating). If you can find reliable sources on Howard's ethnicity, put it in. If you can't find any, then that says something about how much people care about his ethnicity. As for the "early life" section, I mean that's the best place in the article as it stands. Not in the Infobox: a consensus decision was reached a while ago to remove religion from the infobox of all Australian politicians. Peter Ballard 02:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I guess we'll just have to make do with the bit at the bottom that lists Howard as an 'Anglican politician'. Eyedubya 08:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographical details 

message: Section: Opposition years (1983-1996) Link to text:
On 3 August, 2007, I added the following historic information:
The Hawke government immediately seized the opportunity to embarrass Howard over his Asian remarks by introducing a motion to the parliament opposing the use of race to select immigrants. Howard fought desperately against the motion, despite some other Liberal MPs crossing the floor to support it.
However, it was quickly deleted by Blnguyen. This time, the deletion occurred 7 minutes after it was added (usually cited Howard information is deleted in only 6 minutes!!!). The issue of deletion needs to be discussed. Lester2 03:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you need to do is work as part of a team. At the moment you are being an irritant to more experienced editors and your contributions are being seen as vandalism. I suggest that you discuss your edits here rather than edit-warring over them. --Pete 04:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My dear Mr Pete (Skyring). This is an area for civil discussion only. I invite those who wish to engage in civilised discussion. Lester2 04:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly new to WP and to this page in particular. But for what it's worth... My sense is that one issue with this and some other contribs has been the choice of language - i think it would be a rare situation where it would be appropriate to use the words "fought desperately" in an encyclopedia article, unless they were directly quoting an authoritative source of the day. Ditto "immediately seized the opportunity". It isn't that these things are not arguably true in a broad sense. Rather, every decision to adopt this language - which would be appropriate in a newspaper opinion column or article in something like Quadrant or The Monthly - undermines the fragile balance of NPOV. NPOV is all the more difficult to maintain in any article on a contemporary political figure, so they require even more careful writing than articles about less contentious subjects (or even contentious, but historical, subjects). Despite some flaws, the language on the page as it stands at this moment seems somewhat preferable to Lester2's. However, I also think the entry will ultimately benefit from one or two referenced examples of how Howard's stance was used against him later, as well as for balance perhaps reporting his more recent reflections on the issue. Ultimately this entry aims to inform complete outsiders about the nature and significance of Howard's role in public life, which is why it does seem appropriate to report the long term impact and analysis of this well-known incident. I don't know if my contribution helps at all. If I get some time, I might try and do some work on the entry to follow my points through... cheers hamiltonstone 06:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something might be true and well-sourced, but notability and appropriateness for a biographical article also needs to be considered. The race quote is reasonably well-known and bears inclusion, if for no other reason than its aptness in terms of later problems with integration. But parliamemtary motions across the despatch boxes, although well sourced in Hansard, complete to extreme and inflammatory language, are rarely worthy of inclusion in a biographical article. --Pete 02:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To 'hamiltonstone': the line "immediately seized the opportunity" was how it was described in newspaper reports. Someone deleted that line in later revisions so I guess it doesn't matter. //  To 'Pete/Skyring' the notability of the event can be proven by the wealth of newspaper articles on it. There are no Googleable stories from the mid -1980s. All the stories are recent ones, which shows it's of current interest and notable. I can cite more news items if requested. 3rd opinion sought Lester2 14:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the only editor who wants this stuff included, you've edit-warred over it, you keep on reinserting it without consensus, and if you do it again I'll report you on 3RR. --Pete 22:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at your 3rd opinion request, it seems that you haven't grasped the point that this is intended for a fresh pair of eyes on disputes involving only two editors. Looking at the history page, it is clear that multiple editors are opposed to the material you alone keep on reinserting. --Pete 22:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's notable but not because the motion started with Hawke, trying to embarrass Howard (I wasn't aware that it had gone like that). It's notable only because a number of his own members crossed the floor against him (and because one of those was Philip Ruddock - I'll be elaborating this point on Ruddock's page, which only mentions it briefly). I think it is an integral point, to show that not all the Liberals were with Howard at that time. Couldn't we have a compromise, take out the dramatic language "immediately seized the opportunity", but leave in the notable fact that Ruddock and others did cross the floor on this issue?  Nick 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi User:Nick, glad you found the information notable. I'm happy with the ideas of   User:Nick and User:hamiltonstone, that the event is notable for inclusion, and that that colorful language like "seized the opportunity" and "Howard fought desperately" be toned down. The final version at  15:03, 5 August 2007 is fairly minimalist, and may come close to what you want. Maybe you guys can improve on that. I'm also happy if anyone wants to expand it. Lester2 01:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: While I believe that Howard's comments at the time are very notable (probably the biggest stuffup of his 1st term as opposition leader, apart from his inability to control the Peacock and Joh camps), I'm not convinced that the parliamentary vote is the best way to expand on it. I'd like to see the section expanded, but instead with detail on how and why he was criticised for it. The parliamentary vote itself isn't notable without some explanation of the controversy surrounding it. p.s. It definitely belongs on the Ruddock page though, because though just another day in parliament for Howard, it was a very big deal for Ruddock. Peter Ballard 01:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it shouldn't be expanded unless the rest of the opposition years is proportionally expanded. Since the motion itself does not appear to be a piece of legislation or program, but only appears to be a statement of ideology, I don't think that the motion is notable. In parliament they have these types of things all the time, condemning some terrorist act, expressing condolences for victims of natural disasters and condemning Mugabe and so forth. I think explaing the impact of the controversy is more important. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 03:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is true that there are motions passed all the time (in the parliamentary sense!). Like those examples condemning Mugabe, or condemning a terrorist act. Those examples are non-notable, because all the parliamentarians voted as expected. But imagine if an MP voted to show his support for Robert Mugabe, or support for a terrorist act. Then they would become notable. Unlike Ruddock, Howard voted to oppose the motion that would outlaw race as a criteria for selecting immigrants. That makes it very significant and noteworthy.Lester2 03:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we get a count of how many ppl crossed the floor from teh Liberals. Was it a massive number? The link that Lester provided doesn't show who voted which way. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From memory it was 3. http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s672095.htm Peter Ballard 04:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lester2's comparison to Mugabe above is just ridiculous. Hawke was just grandstanding and of course his motion did not reflect the reality. Of far more interest is that there were divisons within the Liberals. However, Howard has always had his party opponents and many, such as Peacock and Costello, have been fairly vocal. It is in the nature of the Liberals, that members can and do cross the floor albeit rarely. Alby Schultz, as a local example. Going back to the 1975 crisis, Whitlam fully expected a few Libs to crack. It is not the same as the ALP, where the appearance of solidarity is demanded on every level. Look at the odium heaped upon Mal Colston, speaking of 1975. --Pete 05:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only way for this issue to be resolved is with formal mediation. Blnguyen & Skyring (Pete) (and anyone else who would like to comment, are you accepting of mediation? Lester2 01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Hawke motion on race, opposed by Howard 

message: http://www.flickr.com/photos/diongillard/93805238/ Timeshift 04:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does permission equal relevance?

message: Which admin decided it would be more productive to lift the protection on this page? I'm sure I recall hearing from an admin that Wikipedia won't even consider lifting the page protection until Howard is out of office. Timeshift 03:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Voice of All unprotected the page with this edit. I for one am sick of reverting the blankings and "frothing at the mouth" ravings, entirely in capital letters. Prester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 07:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs protection

message: I agree with User:Intelligent Mr Toad and this edit. Three separate pictures of Howard and Bush amount to a violation of WP:POINT. I am removing two until suitable replacements can be found. Prester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 07:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per edit summary. Timeshift 08:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prestor John, ex-liberal mp, whatever you want to be known as. I have compromised by removing one of the photos, but the other three photos stay. Two have Bush, with one of those containing Howard's wife. That's the nature of wikipedia, US photos are freely usable images. I've cited one who agrees with me, and nobody else has raised an eyebrow until you, an ex-liberal, comes along to remove them. Please take your bias elsewhere. Timeshift 09:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO it is not "editorialising". To do otherwise leaves a text-heavy page that is hard on the eyes. I'm personally of the opinion that one image per screen is fine, and this is one image per 2.5 screens at present. I for one would be happy if people took more photos of John Howard and uploaded them, or his press office released some under GFDL (this will never happen - believe me, some of us have tried contacting politicians for this purpose and it's often a fruitless pursuit as many of them have older press advisors who just don't "get" technology) so that we could have a wider diversity of photos, but unfortunately we are constrained by Wikipedia's new (2007) fair use rules/enforcement to what is free for a living politician. My own pic of him taken at a rally in Perth sucks, was too close up. Orderinchaos 10:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 Photos of Bush

message: I have an issue with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Liberal1.JPG - who else agrees it is not encyclopaedic and/or POV? Timeshift 10:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally have no problem with it - it shows how he is being promoted by his party. The caption might need work but the poster is fine. If anything it's more likely to offend right-wing sensibilities as he's looking a bit Hansonish in this one. Orderinchaos 10:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We have promotional images in other articles, such as :Image:Rann gets results.jpg, :Image:SA06posters.PNG and :Image:Liberalhtv.jpg just in a cursory look around - and that's not even getting into historic ones. As an administrator quite capable of actioning or declining a speedy deletion request, I would much prefer to see community discussion rather than threats and point-pushing on both sides of the debate as we've seen today. Orderinchaos 10:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still would like to see the source of the image. Looks like a photoshop work to me. If the image is genuine it is worth inclusion - it is funny Alex Bakharev 11:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was also amused by it. Mind you, I've seen similar efforts in small country towns in my travels, so such things do seem to exist. Orderinchaos 11:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly looks like a photoshop, and if not then from an old advertising campaign. It should certainly be moved from the Australian federal election, 2007 page, where this editor seems to determined to place it. Recurring dreams 11:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you - any quality photo of Howard you have that doesn't breach Wikipedia rules is most welcome. The way Wikipedia is designed, be it for better or worse, is that photos by US press, such as those in this article, are freely useable on wikipedia. It's better to have photos that will stay there than dodgy photos which will over time be deleted for copyvio issues. But again, any photo you've taken or another who has given their permission and is a quality photo, it is more than welcome. Kudos to Orderinchaos, it's just a pity the pictures are of such poor quality as he has already mentioned. Timeshift 11:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a photoshop job. If this was real Liberal Party material, a good proportion of members would resign if its designer was not fired. Delete on sight, block the troll. Michael talk 11:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it eligable for speedy delete? Timeshift 11:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Have a look at the (actual) image which I photographed up north in my recent holiday, which isn't that dissimilar, and is definitely kosher. Different strokes for different folks, and the country and the city clearly adopt different campaigning methods. Orderinchaos 11:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, we will not take "scanned from a Liberal pamphlet" in good faith on this one. Timeshift 11:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one am prepared to show good faith, I was actually going to contact the Liberal Party's office tomorrow morning when they open and link them to it. If they say it's not theirs, I'll happily support its removal. I don't see any reason why it can't wait 14 hours. - edit - Looks like Alex Bakharev has taken care of that for me. I will support the outcome of that process. Orderinchaos 11:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Image talk:Liberal1.JPG, Greg Hunt has been emailed by Alex as you have said, I am also happy with this outcome. Timeshift 11:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo is very uncomplimentary. No way is that a genuine Liberal poster. Orderinchaos's example is quite different because it shows JWH looking composed and statesmanlike, though I doubt that one is genuine Liberal material either. Peter Ballard 12:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New image

message: Which admin decided it would be more productive to lift the protection on this page? I'm sure I recall hearing from an admin that Wikipedia won't even consider lifting the page protection until Howard is out of office. Timeshift 03:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Voice of All unprotected the page with this edit. I for one am sick of reverting the blankings and "frothing at the mouth" ravings, entirely in capital letters. Prester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 07:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still lots of vandalism going on  Lester2 00:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs protection

message: Here's a reference to a current news story. It's from the Las Vegas Sun, but the same story, according to Google, is found in newspapers worldwide. The key point is that the Commonwealth is not admitting any responsibility, instead pointing the finger at State governments and church organisations. --Pete 06:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course the Commonwealth is not admitting responsibility, because it's a Howard government minister reflecting Howard's view of the world. But the calls were for the federal government to apologise for past Federal misdeeds, not the misdeeds of other governments. The Stolen generations report, said: "Recommendation 5a: That all Australian Parliaments 1.officially acknowledge the responsibility of their predecessors for the laws, policies and practices of forcible removal,....  Peter Ballard 06:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So have I made my case? Does someone else want to revert the text? Peter Ballard 08:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't made a case, because the calls were not for a federal apology, but a national apology. There is a difference, though I am not sure that those demanding an apology were aware of it or the significance of the 1967 referendum. I'm not happy with the "previous generations" wording because it doesn't give the full story. --Pete 08:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? Didn't you read the bit which called for "all Australian Parliaments" to apologise? And if you read the Stolen Generations report, you will see that federal involvement is documented. Not even Howard tried to deflect it by saying it was a State but not a Federal responsibility. (The cite you offer above doesn't do that, merely claiming that "most" - not all - were caused by State governments). Saying that the debate was only over the action of "colonial and state governments" is false. Peter Ballard 12:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed "generations" to "governments", which seems to cover the BTH recommendation. --Pete 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonwealth apologising for State misdeeds 

message: I've reinstated the famous campaign slogan "we will decide who comes into this country..."  This time, the quote is in full, and cited.
::I've deleted Lesters rampant [[WP:SYNTH]| synthesizing] of material yet again. His claim that the quote was a party slogan is another attempt to deliberately mislead. The first reference he uses does not even include the word slogan in its entire article. The second reference is an opinion piece by the discredited extreme leftist Margo Kingston which doesn't even come close to satisfying WP:RS. Prester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 13:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might help to keep our eye on the ball here. While it is difficult to keep politics out of a politician's life, this is, above all, a biography of a single person. It is not a political history of modern Australia, and there are separate articles that deal with various topics in much greater detail. We need to keep this article on topic. There are many episodes that are important to understanding the life of John Howard, but all we really need for most of the wider issues of recent years is a summary sentence and a wikilink to the relevant article. Our readers may then click through to a more thorough treatment. --Pete 18:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How could there be an article on John Howard's Prime Ministership without referred to the "we will decide..." statement?  It is one of his most defining statements, it's not pushing a POV to include it, it is reporting exact words of the subject person, the Party even used this line in political advertising and Howard has proudly repeated the statement numerous times, this is something the subject person has pushed themselves so the article should recognise this.  Also if questions about Prester John are correct then doesn't he have a conflict of interest editing political articles? Cheers,  WikiTownsvillian 14:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the famous slogan "We will decide who comes..." again. The edit war over this one, Howard's most famous ever quote, is a good example of how difficult it is to add information to this article. I'm surprised some people consider it a contentious quote, as (like Alec said above) it is a phrase that Howard promoted heavily himself. The Liberal Party took out full page election advertisements in Perth, and that slogan featured in huge text. I wish I had an image of those Perth newspaper ads, as it would compliment this article. Lester2 21:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm happy for this discussion to be archived. Lester2 04:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest rework of '2001 election campaign' section 

message: Article is start class. I disagree with most of the opinions in it. Should not be B class 58.165.254.80 07:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess all the other opinions than yours are wrong. We'll change it immediately! /sarcasm Michael talk 07:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No way a cruft-free, 83-reference, 9.5-screen article is not B class in my opinion. Even the assessment criteria for B allow for some omissions and necessary fixes, after which it can go for GA - although may fail the stability requirement in the immediate time period. Orderinchaos 08:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start Class 

message: Looking at Lester2's most recent attempt to get help from the wiki-powers-that-be, I find he wrote, "The latest example is a simple 2 sentence paragraph that I added, about how John Howard in the 1980s voted in the Parliament for immigration to be selected on race."
This is deliberately untrue. Not only has Lester2 failed to characterise his inclusion of Bob Hawke's motion in such terms previously, this description is false,
While I can appreciate that we need editors with a diversity of opinion, and that review of conflicts by uninvolved authorities is a Good Thing, this is going way too far. --Pete 22:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To Skyring (Pete): First, if you disagree with the Bob Hawke Motion paragraph (that you deleted), you could have written this under the existing discussion under that topic, rather than start a new topic titled ""Lies". Second, you could have stated why you think it's untrue, or worked with other editors to reword it, rather than just delete it.Lester2 00:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about content here, but your behaviour. We can always come to some agreement on content, but the way you operate within the community is something that only you can change. You've already had a couple of minor blocks for edit-warring, and it would be a positive move if you could take them as a gentle warning. --Pete 00:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are not talking about content, then this discussion page is the inappropriate forum for the discussion. Lester2 02:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you edited other articles beside this one, then you might be correct. Looking at your edit history I see very little besides your edits to this article and complaining about how your edits to this article keep on being reverted and how unfair it all is. --Pete 10:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lies 

message: I have started a Wikiquette alert about discourteous deletions, and have cited examples from User:Blnguyen and User:Skyring.
There are Wikipedia:Etiquette guidelines, and also guidelines at  regarding deletion of 'useful content'. By 'useful content', we are talking about content that is factual and cited, though some editors may feel it does not belong in the article for some other reason.
I don't expect everyone to agree with the information, but simply hitting the delete button is not the courteous way to deal with it. Other alternatives are to move the information, or to modify the sentences and wording.
The correct way to deal with such information is listed here:
Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting...
My aim is to encourage everyone to follow those guidelines. Thanks Lester2 02:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we still allowed to use the "t-word" here? --Pete 03:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Lester2. It seems like some people own the page and therefore decide what is relevant. Yet as I understand WP, nobody owns a page, and sourced information should be discussed instead of simply removed. I found out as well that you shouldn't bite a newcomer. We newcomers are encouraged to be bold, and this boldness seems to be not welcomed on the John Howard page. The fact that we include information here is because we deem it relevant, related and worth mentioning. --Lord Chao 12:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discourteous Deletions / Wikiquette alert 

message: Responding to RfC:I've read the remarks above, along with the partial list of contentious statements posted by Lester2 in the section immediately preceding that.
*First, let me say that the overuse of fact-tags is something that all of us should deplore. In particular, tagging large numbers of statements that are hardly contentious - "Howard continues to be popular among those who think Australia should restrict immigration", to choose an imaginary example - is counterproductive and poor user behaviour.
*That being said, if the sort of statements listed above is a representative sample of those tagged,   they could certainly benefit from being cited.
*However, I suggest that Lester aid the process by citing some of them himself. "Lazarus with a triple bypass", for example, is very easy to cite to reliable sources., , . 
*Statements like "economic growth remains an essential element in its popularity" are particularly difficult to justify, and should not be in the article at all, if objected to, unless more than one decent source is provided. I can find several citations for the initial participation in the Iraq War as an essential element to his popularity in 2003, but "John Howard"+"growth"+"popularity" throws up practically nothing significant. This sort of fluffiness is exactly what fact-tags are there for.
*I see that, for example, the response to a request for citation about One Nation's shambolic campaign is "you'd have to be pretty ignorant...". Well, some of our readers will be. And they might not believe we are any more informed. So we cite even that, if required. Here again, perhaps Lester could meet the opposition halfway by offering to cite some of it.
*As you point out, either things are easy to cite, or they are pretty difficult. Overuse occurs when statements obvious to a majority of readers are tagged or required to be taken out. I'd like to hear of examples where that was done, if any.
*Finally, if the question is whether a particular fact is skewed, citation will not help. In particular, if I can find a citation saying "Howard is in danger of losing the political cushion of a prosperous economy" (which I have), the more relevant discussion is: is this a majority view? is it so important a fact that it has to be in the bio? Is the implication that, thus, a prosperous economy was central to his previous re-election OR? Fact-tagging will not solve these deeper questions. Hornplease 02:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also came from the RFC posting.  User:Hornplease is spot-on, some of these tags are valid, some are unnecessary, and most would be remarkably easy to source is someone would just do the footwork. Italiavivi 15:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: article has full protection requiring an admin to perform any edits please use  for any requests. Also this has been notified at WP:AN/I diff so there should be relatively quick responses to issues. Gnangarra 01:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please change the protection notification on the article to reflect that the page is full protected, not merely semi-protected.  Someguy1221 01:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done Gnangarra 01:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  What Alex says. This is stupid. In any event there is nothing to stop politically motivated edits being made from a non work computer. Blocking edits is a silly reaction Albatross2147 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This protection should be lifted. IP's (which are what the SMH article & Wikiscanner refer to) have been blocked by the semi-protection up to now. There is no evidence of substantial contributions by anyone with a COI, so the notice should go as well. Kevin 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've lifted it. Per above, IPs which are detected by the WikiScanner are already blocked by the slock. If any staffers edit with usernames then they can't be stopped anyway, unless the whole article is always locked, or they are somehow discovered by other means. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 03:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: Having come to this page from WP:WQA, I can't figure out who are the good guys. I looked around for any information critical of John Howard that might have been deleted, and I only found the article about the copra plantations. Has anyone noticed any other well-sourced critical comments that might have been removed? From the above Talk I think the copra plantations were discussed, but I can't figure out the conclusion. If this page has arrived at a consensus, it must not be a very clear one.
I note that both User:Lester2 and User:Prester John have been blocked for 3RR violations here. To help newcomers to this page figure this out, does anyone recall what issues those were about?
Looking at  "PM's staff edited Wikipedia" I didn't see mention of any edits to this article.  EdJohnston 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which would concure with Wikiscanners own information.  Shot info 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's lots of vigorous discussion on this article! The copra plantations is just one, and is discussed above under #John Howard's secret ancestry revealed. And as I've said above (under #Protection, I think the Wikiscanners news reports are a beatup, as well as factually inaccurate. Peter Ballard 02:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be but its yet to be proven and we have an obligation to ensure that information presented is factual and unbias. If you read closer it appears as if a number of articles have been edited by his office not just this one. Gnangarra 02:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be OR without a RS to suggest that the subject of this article had the department make the changes.  Per BLP it should not be included.  In addition, Wikiscanner does show that the Dept. does edit wikipedia, probably just like many people from work.  And the actually "political" articles are very limited.  Not that the "news" story has presented it that way...  Shot info 02:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They warning template does not claim anyone in particular has been making changing in violation of policy. However the SMH article provides reasonable suspicion (to the standards we use on wikipedia anyway) that there are COI issues, and hence that these need to be resolved before we can claim to be provided a neutral article to readers. Recurring dreams 02:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the SMH article is factual.  I have provided a link to Wikiscanner (above) showing what it says.  So either Wikiscanner has changed it's information or the SMH is incorrect.  Simply by checking source information will tell us this.  After all, it's not like the Australian media to be biased this close to an election....o no...never :-)  Shot info 02:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Lots of things have been deleted. semi-automatic handguns, Hawke race motion, Howard drinking after leadership spill, Costello contradicts Howard's threat to resign, AWB Scandal. The thing is, in every single one of those disputes, the facts were not in dispute. The disputes all hinged around whether it is relevant, or whether it was considered "anti-Howard" to include such information. Lester2 02:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiScanner can only measure IP edits. All the people who removed this stuff (including me) are logged in, so WIkiScanner can't pick us up. And no, I am not in a govt agency. So this is irrelevant. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  You can start the discussion now. One edit per trade, please Alex Bakharev 03:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I've scanned through all the critical items mentioned in this thread, the one that has the strongest claim to be in the article is, in my view, the AWB scandal. The other criticisms seem to be correctly excluded as not relevant, or not important enough to deserve space. The AWB scandal had a large dollar value and it occurred under Howard's administration. A sentence or two on the topic might be sufficient. Regarding copra, there's no evidence that Howard's father made a lot of money from his copra go-between activities, so except for the disrepute it casts on the father, it doesn't seem to prove much. The issue is covered with the proper weight in Howard's father's own article. EdJohnston 04:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Costello's remarks add something. I don't really know about whether his father's business dealings should be described, but I certainly don't think the current description of his early life accurately reflects that included in the copra article. Hornplease 05:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Costello's statements don't appear to be backed up by anyone but himself, I'm still unclear on their significance. With regard to the current description of Howard's early life, I suppose Howard's line (that we quote in the article)  "I was brought up in a home that sort of believed in the values of hard work and honesty and commitment to one’s country, and commitment to one’s community" could be questioned. The copra story suggests, not that they were wealthy, but that his father was a bit dishonest. So unless we know more about the actual values taught in his home, I don't know that we really need to quote Howard on that issue.  Note that John Howard has apparently declined to comment on his father's go-between activities with regard to the copra plantations, so we can take points off for that, but I don't know how to phrase that in terms of WP policies. EdJohnston 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any critical information deleted? 

message: I think that the reference to Churchill as Howard's "namesake" should be removed.  Whilst factually correct, I think it is an inappropriate attempt to make him appear more statesmanlike.  Especially because of the myth about Howard being named after Churchill - he was born when Churchill was a backbencher and not yet prime minister.  
I'm not a long-time Wikipedia user so I didn't remove it myself - I just put it up for consideration.  Kringle7 07 04:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  <trolling removed as per WP:BLP>. Albatross2147 06:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: trolling removed as per WP:BLP, talk page are fro discussion on improvements to the article not for personal commentary on the subject. Gnangarra 06:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a hangover from when the article said he was named after Churchill - which was removed because it couldn't be proved. So I agree, remove the phrase, it adds nothing. Peter Ballard 06:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which is the point I was making when I wrote earlier <remove trolling> which to explicate for the obtuse among us is a lateral argument in support of the deletion of the phrase. Albatross2147 07:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have already been warned about talk page they are for commenting on the article content not the person. Gnangarra 07:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winston Churchill namesake 

message: The following paragraph, within the section 'The 2001 Election Campaign' should be deleted as innaccurate and misleading:
"The subsequent Senate inquiry later found that passengers aboard other SIEVs had threatened children, sabotaged their own vessels, committed self-harm, and, in the case of SIEV-7 on 22 October, a child had been thrown overboard and rescued by another asylum seeker.[42]"
The source being cited here is an Appendix that forms part of a minority report by government members who disagreed with the main findings of the Senate Committee Report entitled 'A Certain Maritime Incident' (23 October 2002).
So the claims contained in the offending paragraph certainly do not represent the findings of 'the subsequent Senate inquiry', as the paragraph states. Rather, it represents a particular dissenting version of events asserted by government spin-merchants.
130.56.65.24 07:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, these are undisputed statements of fact, rather than "dissenting claims". The existing pattern of sabotage and self-harm is precisely what caused the government to claim that children had been thrown overboard - it wasn't something that was made up on the spot. --Pete 17:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record. Timeshift 07:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  erroneous and misleading paragraph re: Children Overboard Affair