Talk:John Howard/Archive 2

message: Are we sure he's an Anglican?  As I understand, his mother was a Methodist. Slac speak up! 11:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian Anglicans

message: :::Is his attempt at Drummoyne currently in the article? Andjam 13:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it does not seem to be. I'll try to come up with a carefully NPOV wording and suitable citattion. It should be noted that his mother and he moved house to an address in the electorate which indicates the seriousness of the effort. This was also the time when the family falling out (over politics) with the middle brother was starting to simmer. Albatross2147 21:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drummoyne

message: Really? Is it verifiable by some actual quote from parents that they named him after Churchill? I think it is fairly obvious that this might have been the case, but mentioning this without any firm indication that the parents have made public statements of the subect seems rather speculative and unnecessary. --Wm 07:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winston 

message: This discussion is in reference to the use of the word "Hansonism" in the line "Some saw Howard's lukewarm response to Hansonism as indicating either tacit support for its sentiments..."
Is "Hansonism" an accepted term? I've never heard of it before. It suggests Pauline Hanson invented some new kind of philosophy, which I believe is untrue. Any objections in changing it to simply "One Nation"? 
--Pragitor 06:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hansonism has appeared in newsprint for many years.  I'm sure you could find a cite in a newspaper article from the period.  Slac speak up! 06:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hansonism gets eighteen thousand Google hits. Do the math. :) Ambi 07:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yep. Hansonism and Hansonite gained currency.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Gawd - you'd think I would have had the sense to Google the word! Sorry, I'll change it back to Hansonism.--Pragitor 23:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hansonism 

message: Hi,
I'm thinking of making the following changes to the article:
* Merging the two opening paragraphs to get rid of the repitition
::check
* Making a mention that Howard worked in his father's garage, 
::check
* and perhaps that he hated it.  (He was paid less than the legal minimum for the time.)  
::Nah.
* replacing ""dry" or "economic rationalist" theories associated with Margaret Thatcher" with a reference to Thatcherism
::check
* delete the reference to Menzies having more in common with Fraser than Howard.  While (IMHO) true it needs explaining, and doesn't sit well where it is,
::check
* move the line about the Howard deficit to the previous paragraph, after the line about Fraser's big spending budget,
::check
* change the description of Keating from flamboyant to acerbic
::Did the one that describes Keating the man, left the one describing his policies.
* add a note near the the phrase 'for all of us' to reference an aborignal leader saying that 'we knew we weren't included in us',
::Sort of.  A bit.  Not really.  (It was Noel Pearson.)  Didn't really do this.  Did talk about main stream vs minorities.
* add reform fatigue, interest rates and the recesion we had to have as reasons for the defeat of the Keating govt,
::check
* restructure the first term, second term, ... sections into 1996 election, first term, 1998 election, second term, ...
::check
* first term
::clean up gun buyback paragraph, and move down a little bit.
::I've chopped this bit "The environmental movement also ran a high-profile campaign against the government's support for the Jabiluka uranium mine."  I don't think was a major factor? If anyone wants to put it back, go ahead but change "two issues" to "three issues".
*chop most of the description of the ACT heroin trial (too detailed),
::I've cut this totally.  I don't think it's significant, except maybe in understanding the philosophy of John Howard.  I could be wrong.  In case anyone wants to restore it, here it is: "In 1997 Howard's conservative views on drugs led to him intervening to stop the planned trial of a heroin program in the Australian Capital Territory. The trial was strongly advocated by reformist ACT Chief Minister Kate Carnell, a former pharmacist. She sought to introduce a European-style system in which heroin addicts would be licenced and supplied with medical-grade heroin and provided with safe injecting facilities. Howard's blocking of the heroin trial, which had been approved by all state Health Ministers, led to strong criticism from advocates of harm minimisation drug policy."
* add the 'we will decide who comes' quote 
:: check.  
* discuss briefly Beazley's failure to respond to the Tampa
:: check.  Strictly, the asylum seekers were genuine, but let's not go there now.
* chop the reference to 'cult like status'.  
::check
* chop the reference to the 18 may celebrations
::check
* chop the reference to the sprig of acacia
::check
* split the ir and terror changes into a seperate section - maybe ==ongoing reform== ?
::==Unfinished business==
* add some reference to support for mates such as mandrilla/stan howard/mr gerard
::Hmmm.  Hard to do this while being NPOV.  I guess they could be added into 3rd term, 4th term.  Maybe later.
* add a section on ==Howard's philosophical position== looking at how he has gotten rid of the liberal wets and the ways in which he is, and is not, a typical conservative.  The comparisons to Menzies and Fraser could go here.
::Could also discuss his father's philosophy, as per Ramsey article.
* add a section on howard's wanna be successors, including the 'as long as the party room wants me' line
::check
* other minor rewordings
::clean up the introduction of the GST
* iraq
::chop "During 2003-04 the Howard government was criticised for its involvement in the Iraq war and support for U.S. President George W. Bush. These criticisms came from figures such as former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and political commentator Robert Manne, as well as from within the intelligence community, the military, and the public service. "  The usual suspects, frankly.  Not much value without a specific cite.
* choped "It was generally agreed by media and political commentators that Latham had the better of Howard in the sole debate during the campaign, and some opinion polls continued to suggest a very close race until the last days of the campaign."  So what.  Unless we know why that poll was wrong, it doesn't shed any light on Howard.
Changes I'd like to make, if I had the information.  (Hint)
* change "practising for some years" to "for N years" but I don't know what the value of N is.
* state what office he held in the Liberal Party prior to becoming elected, if I knew what office it was.
* state who he beat to become deputy
Regards, Ben Aveling 10:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes 

message: Hi, someone removed the direct quote about johnnie's racist statement in 1988. So i'm trying to find something reasonably close to a direct quote rather than just n-th hand rewording. 
There's lots of reworded stuff, e.g.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/australia/election_partyleaders.html  CBC canada
:In 1988, he was roundly criticized for a speech in which he claimed Australia was taking too many Asian immigrants. 
http://backpagesblog.com/weblog/archives/000236.html  blogger
:I seem to recall it was he saying in 1988 in John Laws' studio that Australia had too many Asians, and that we should reduce the influx, "in the interests of social cohesion".
But the only detailed quote i can find is from the world socialists' web site (WSWS):
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/hiw5-j16.shtml
:On August 1, 1988, when asked whether the rate of Asian immigration was too fast, Howard replied: “I think there are some people who believe it is. I wouldn’t like to see it greater, I am not in favour of going back to a White Australia policy. I do believe that if it is in the eyes of some in the community, it’s too great, it would be in our immediate term interest and supportive of social cohesion if it were slowed down a little, so that the capacity of the community to absorb was greater.” [6]
But they don't give the details of reference [6] - there's a reference [1]
:Mark McKenna, Different Perspectives on Black Armband History Research Paper 5, 1997-98, Parliamentary Library, pp. 88-89
which is online: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1997-98/98rp05.htm  but this is for citation [1] and not citation [6]. :(
There's some stuff on the HREOC (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) web site, but it only seems to be in google's cache (has johnnie closed down HREOC? i wouldn't be surprised...):
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/beyond_tolerance/speeches/markus.html  (only in google cache right now)
:Explaining the approach to be taken in a radio interview, Howard makes clear that in future there could be fewer immigrants from specific regions. In response to questioning as to whether his policy would lead to a reduction from Asia, he states: 'It could. Because if you have less family reunion, you may have less coming from Asia. It wouldn't be an aim … but that could happen'. Later the same day he is more direct. Asked whether the rate of Asian immigration is too fast, he states:
:: I am not in favour of going back to a White Australia policy. I do believe that if it is in the eyes of some in the community, it's too great, it would be in our immediate term interest and supportive of social cohesion if it were slowed down a little, so that the capacity of the community to absorb was greater.
i'm a bit reluctant to put up a citation for which our best source is thw WSWS. On the other hand, nobody seems to deny that johnnie made this claim. i myself remember this from back then - it was from that point on that he unambiguously defined himself in my eyes as a racist.
Hmmm, i see that there is the statement
:In 1988 Howard's position was weakened by controversy following a speech in which he claimed that Australia's immigration rate was too high.
in the present wikipedia article - all that is missing is Asian. Given all the sources here, IMHO this should be a fairly NPOV consensus fact. Boud 16:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1988 Howard's position was weakened by controversy following a speech in which he claimed that the rate of Asian immigration into Australia was too high. 
Boud 16:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many Asians statement in 1988 

message: * Throughout the first half of 2005, the Howard government faced increasing pressure regarding the controversial mandatory detention program. It was revealed in February that a mentally ill German citizen and Australian Resident, Cornelia Rau had been held in detention for nine months. The government then established the closed non-judicial Palmer Inquiry promising that the findings would be made public. In May, it was revealed that another Australian, subsequently identified as Vivian Alvarez had been deported from Australia and that the department responsible was unable to locate her. By late May, it was revealed that an additional 200 cases of possible wrongful detention had been referred to the Palmer Inquiry.  and also at this time Howard faced backbench revolt from small numbers of his own government demanding that reforms be made. On June 2, it was revealed  that Cornelia Rau had been identified by the department as an Australian citizen 3 months prior to her final release from detention. 
I've trimmed this.  It happened on his shift, but the detail is better covered elsewhere.  Ben Aveling 12:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted. That is not a long paragraph for what was arguably the biggest scandal of his term so far. Ambi 12:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much detail? 

message: Is there any reason that the info box at the right refers to John Howard as the President? Is says President from 11 March 1996 – present. Surely it should say Prime Minister. Given his views on the republic its an odd title to grant him. Terjepetersen 13:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, Terjepetersen. I suspect the reason was that there was no PM infobox template. I created one, so now he is PM. Wulfilia 13:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  President or Prime Minister 

message: Both are accurate.  He said would never ever introduce one.  But it's POV to describe it as infamous because he did take it to the electorate who had the chance to knock him back on it.  Regards, Ben Aveling 08:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never ever 

message: When comparing John Howard and Gough Whitlam biographies one can sense the very positive attitude towards Gough Whitlam and rather negative tone towards John Howard. We can find easily long list of achivments of the Whitlam goverment but there is no such list for Howard goverment.
How about creating the list of Howard government achievments?
At the moment John Howard biography looks more like it was written by Australian Labor Party member. Let us lift the game and try to be above that.
--Sydney2006 05:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howard government achievments 

message: I am getting tired of constant anonymous attack against this article. May be it is worth to semi-protect it? 
abakharev 05:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sprotection? 

message: I think the sentence already speaks for itself. He has control of both houses of parliament, that usually means he can pass whatever legislation he wants (if Barnaby agrees ;) ). No need for that addition. michael talk 08:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like that in every system. It's common sense that if a leader/party controls both houses he has the power to push through legislation. michael talk 08:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "like that in every system" - many systems of government don't have "both houses" to begin with, or they have a higher executive who can veto anything that comes through parliament (as indeed we do in Australia, but it never happens).  On the other hand, I think saying that Howard "[has] the power to pass any Bill" is both simplistic and misleading.  I don't think it belongs in the introduction. FiggyBee 12:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition to Intro

message: It appears to me that some of you very current with current Austrailian politics should update this; to my relatively uninformed eyes it appears to treat events occurring in December 2005 as still being current and ongoing when in fact they are somewhat past; additionally this is an important article about a current world figure, making this more important than similar tasks in other articles, especially since its potential for timeliness can be one of Wikipedia's greatest assets. Rlquall 01:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't last part ("Unfinished business") need updating? 

message: I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 05:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Selective deletion

message: I added a link to the UN document detailing Norway's complaints over the Tampa situation, (I think that drawing the international censure of Norway in the UN and breaking international law is at least as notable as the Cornelia Rau incident. Dananimal 02:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of this article is just singling out Howard's faults with a link to a media article (which subsequently makes it NPOV, doesn't it?). Not a suprise that people want to do this though. I doubt the article will ever be truely non-partisan. michael talk 13:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's unfair.  Howard made a decision on Tampa, which his supporters supported and his opponenents opposed.  Howard made a decision on IR, which his supporters supported, and his opponents opposed.  Howard made a decision on gun control, which some of his supporters opposed and some of his opponents supported.  Howard said he wouldn't introduce a GST, then later introduced it.  These are all, indisputably, major events in his Prime Ministership.  I don't see what is wrong with the article describing them.  Blanket, non-specific accusations of NPOV are always bound to rile people. Slac speak up! 23:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think Dananimal's comments were PoV and I don't think a conviction is necessary for the accusation to be true but I doubt that any of us know enough about the Law of the Sea to make a definitive judgement. What's clearly NPoV is that an official complaint was made in the UN by Norway in the context of that Law ( p. 23). The Norwegian goverment can't be dismissed as mere "Howard haters"; I'm reinserting that sentence. Nick 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason Tampa changed course was because the asylum seekers refused to land in Indonesia.  There's no legal obligation on them not to change course. Slac speak up! 03:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that the law of the sea says to drop them off at the nearest port. and australia was not the nearest port. if the assylum seekers refused to be dropped off at indonesia, the Tampa should have dropped them off there anyway. That is why the sentence is POV. Xtra 03:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The spirit of the law of the sea is to help those in distress, sending special forces is not a very assuring way to be assisted (they have a proffesional tendency to kill people). The Australian legal opinion is that the law was not broken while the Norwegian opinion is that it was, I don't believe that it has been tried, but accept that it is in dispute and therefore not fact. (IMHO using this talk page as a reference while accusing POV writting seems some what ludicrous.    
    
I have changes SAS to special forces again as far more people understand what special forces means (the link continues to go to the SAS page as they are the special forces mentioned).—Dananimal 04:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hence it is POV. BTW SAS would be understood by any Australian or Briton. Xtra 04:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tampa—Norway—UN

message: I put in some text referring to the name "Honest John". Both times it has been reverted. This is not vandalism on my part. I happen to know that he has often been referred to as "Honest John". That is a fact. Surely it is a political standpoint or in Wikipedia terms, POV, if people revert it. Opponents to John Howard may not like the fact, but, he is known as being an honest politician. The citation I mentioned said that 60% of the public think he is trustworthy, and that is very high for anyone, let alone a politician. So can you now give me a reason why you keep reverting this. Wallie 17:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't belong in the intro but if everyone thinks it's important it could go into a Nicknames and Epithets section. Certainly he's been called "Honest John" enough times for it to be noteworthy but it's just so hard to get the PoV out of it. I mean, it started out as an ironic nickname  but he then embraced it as an accurate description for the '96 election (e.g. when first taking govt his ministerial code of conduct was much stricter than it is now). That's just an edit war waiting to happen! Surely the famous Kennett-Peacock conversation is also noteworthy but I suspect that it might get reverted if anyone were to mention the fact that Kennett called him a cunt. So I would recommend that we just leave all nicknames out altogether. Nick 19:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no POV in the removal of the reference Wallie, nor was its insertion vandalism. It simply isn't appropriate for the introductory paragraph. And your understanding of the epithet is incorrect; "Honest John" has always been an ironic derision used by his opponents.--cj | talk 05:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was pretty annoyed. A New Zealand admin used this as a trigger to initiate a process towards a RfC and arbcom against me! Then an Australian admin wrote to me saying I was "pushing an agenda". Why is it that people always suspect evil motives in others? I was helped out personally by John Howard, while in Australia, and I was at that time an ALP supporter! I happen to think and also know that he was far more honest than some other Australian politicians around at that time... Naturally I have no desire to start an edit war over this. I also take the point about Kennett-Peacock, Nick. It was a private telephone conversation that was transcribed, was it not? Howard's real character came out at the time. He did not lose his cool, as others might have. I think he has a lot of fine qualities. Wallie 21:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honest John 

message: Just a minor quibble: did the first home buyers grant (second term) have a significant impact on the rise of house prices?  Any references for this?  I'd argue against a significant impact, in that the price of housing rose sharpest in NSW in this period, but the first home buyers grant was offset by an increase in state taxes.  Best regards, Dmaher 02:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First home buyers grant 

message: I'm not sure whether this should be in an informative article or not, but I think that John Howard's constant (and arbitrary) division between "core" and "non-core" promises should rate a mention. These have formed a significant part of his rationale for broken electoral promises, and even in the presence of notes regarding these promises, Howard's own terminology would be useful as an observation. Cyril Washbrook 12:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Core" and "non-core" promises