Jump to content

Talk:John Howard/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

Response to Gnangarra and a suggestion for a compromise

Introduction:Thanks Gnangarra for your comments. Everyone interprets policies differently and this talk page is no exception to that. There are two policies widely debated here, which are WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. I am summarising opinions of the editors involved in this discussion based on the current talk page, I did not include opinions from BLP notice board and individual members talk pages. If I may have made mistakes (unintentional) in the summarisation, please feel free to remind me and I will correct. Now, while Gnangarra, Pete (Skyring), Suturz and Yeti Hunter think it is WP:BLP violation, MickMacNee, Merbabu, Orderinchaos, Peter Ballard, chaser, Lester, Matilda and Carbon Rodney dont. Gnagarra and Orderinchaos believe it violates WP:UNDUE MickMacNee, Matilda and Carbon Rodney dont.

Quote from WP:BLP

My interpretation:The reason why Gnangarra thinks it violates BLP is because of the availability of only one reliable source. As far as I understand, reliable sources in plural do not mean that it needs more than one reliable source. Even if a strict requirement for multiple sources need to be strictly followed as asserted by Gnangarra, we have more than one instance when Howard was accused of war crimes as noted in the begining of this talk page, including the head of a state. Please remember the key word here is war crime allegations not crimes. Due to these reasons, I personally think that this does not violate BLP (as with many others).

Clarify you are taking my comments out of context, you ask specifically what policies was I quoting for opposing the text. It was the lack of multiple independent sources, ie one reliable source the ABC article, though still questionable as its lacking specific details. In this BLP is clear poorly source contentious material should be removed. Gnangarra 05:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote from WP:UNDUE

and

My interpretation: I guess the first quote deals with two different views. An example can be that one view being that the world is round and one being world is flat. In our current dispute, I am not sure what we are comparing. Are we comparing reports that he was alleged of war crimes and not alleged of war crimes (if such reports exists which contradict the ABC news reports) or are we comparing that he was alleged of war crimes and he never commited war crimes. It is hard to make the distinction here.

The second quote says that minority view should not be represented at all except in articles devoted to those views. The content in dispute may fail inclusion as per WP:UNDUE because the belief that he commited war crimes are held by a small number of people. But the important point here is that the disputed content does not claim that he commited war crimes, it simply claims that he was alleged of war crimes. So, the content will fail WP:UNDUE if it says he commited war crimes and may not necessarily fail if it says that he was alleged of that. Now, some might argue that since only a minority holds the view that he commited war crimes, it doesnt matter whether it says he commited war crimes or he was alleged of war crimes. Therefore, I am not able to decide whether it violates WP:UNDUE.

Compromise:Due to the complex interpretation of wikipedia policies and in an interest to present a compromised edit, I am proposing the following. I am not sure if it has been discussed here before, but I notice that the opposition to Iraq War is not included in Howard article (I hope I read it correct). But if the fact that the war received opposition within Australia can be proven by reliable sources like this one involving 150000 people, this one and this one. I am sure you all probably are aware of better citations than these. The protest against war can be combined with the allegations of war crimes in one simple sentence which in my opinion will not violate WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP. Please let me know your opinions. I would like to apologise if there was any factual error when I quoted people. It is unintentional. Please read it carefully, there is no hurry. DockuHi 20:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, UNDUE has the quote, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.". I interpret this as stating that you cannot create an article Allegations of John Howard as a war criminal which would be reflecting the viewpoints not belonging here (ignoring worldview/systemic bias concerns), but you can include a single line about the 'fringe view' in his article, as per the exception. MickMacNee (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Clarify another ommision from what I said, ...except in articles devoted to those views there is no article on the ICCaction group, probably because they lack the necessary sources to address notability. However there are articles on the 2003 invasion of Iraq this information should be in that where its in context, there is also a dedicated section in the article on war crimes against civilians along with an article called Criticism of the Iraq War and another Legality of the Iraq War all which should have some coverage of the accusation but dont. Gnangarra 05:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The reason other articles don't mention is because in part the content issues degenerated into personal attacks and conduct complaints which ensured that one of the editors who might have added it elsewhere (me) hasn't been adding any content for over a week. At present I find that argument unconvincing. Moreover the lack of mention in the Barack Obama article of Howard's comments did not mean that they were considered sufficiently unnotable to be inserted into this one. --Matilda talk 06:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Similar complaints are however covered in International Criminal Court#Other complaints, and in this ICC document which it references.[1] To summarise, by 2006 the ICC had received over 240 submissions on the Iraq war, and had already determined that the decision to go to war lies outside the scope of the ICC. So Allison's complaint is nothing new, which probably explains everyone's lack of interest in it. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Legality of decision to go to war, war crime allegations and war crimes are totally different things. I guess we need to make the distinction clear at some point. Since the inception of ICC in 2002, only four successfull instances of ICC involvement in war crimes are noted according to this article, International Criminal Court. They happened in Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic and Sudan. All are african countries. Is it because that war carimes are not commited elsewhere in the world? Sometimes, I wonder if this financial contribution to ICC is in any way related to ICC functions. Well, I am not drawing any conclusion here. Again, we are discussing about allegations. War crimes are one of the most difficult things to prove, therefore allegations themselves gain notability. (not every leader in the world gets alleged of war crimes) The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq details allegations of Targetting of civilians, excessive attacks, wilful killing and human treatment of civilians and allegations of complicity. These allegations have passed wikipedia notability test (as discussed above) to have its own article. Therefore, such allegations made by notable public figures both within Australia and outside and the ICC action group against Howard might deserve inclusion. WP:PRESERVE allows us to include relevant information phrased in a way which does not violate any wikipedia policy. While it may also belong to other relevant articles, the allegations are certainly relevant to be included here as they are specifically related to Howard the person himself. It may even be appropriate to phrase that there were street protests and demonstations against the Iraq war including calls for him to be tried for war crimes rather than he was alleged of war crimes.(appropriate citations) Like many of you, I have to admit that I personally dont believe that the war crime allegations or calls hold any traction and they will certainly fail. DockuHi 12:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources? All of the above is very interesting, but it is the personal opinion of people here, not a genuinely encyclopaedic judgement. Not to mention a rather original synthesis of various different sources. It also doesn't account for the two other ICC complaints agsinst Australian politicians which have not been heard of since they were made, much like this one (for the record, the ones against Philip Ruddock and Kevin Andrews). Orderinchaos 02:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Compromise edit

A new sentence can be added to the ninth header in the article (bold). The sentence can certainly be improved in a way that does not violate WP:NPOV.

Relationship with George Bush:A feature of John Howard's period in office was his close relationship with United States president George W. Bush[60] In May, 2003, Howard made an overnight stay at Bush's Prairie Chapel Ranch in Texas[61]. The two shared a common ideology on many issues, most visibly in their approach to the "War on Terror". The war in Iraq received wide criticism and protest both within Australia and the world including war crime allegations from Malaysian prime minister and a loosely associated ICC action group. DockuHi 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

At last someone suggests some compromise wording. I am disappointed it has taken so long. I'd prefer the following: The war in Iraq received both national and international criticism. John Howard was accused of war crimes by the Malaysian prime minister, Mahatir Mohammed{fact}. Mahatir is notable, since he is a foreign leader. ICCAction isn't, since it seems to be the work of a single private individual. --Surturz (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Suturz for your support. It is encouraging when it comes from people with whom I had difference of opinion with. I am confident that we will work out a text which satisfies all wikipedia policies. DockuHi 04:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think Mahathir's comments, independently of the action, are fine - much as one might see Ahmedinejad's views of George Bush in his article. Orderinchaos 00:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Compromise edit comments

How wide is "wide"? 10km? 10cm? Just checking. regards --Merbabu (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Like I mentioned, the sentence can be improved. Pls help yourself. I like the sarcasm though. :)DockuHi 21:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Glad you picked up on the jest. I’m gonna be a pain by pointing out a problem without offering a solution. But, I’ll tweak it if something comes to mind. Now, back to finding solutions to other people’s real life problems. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Absolutley, I like humour, anything which can diffuse tension. DockuHi 21:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Good-o. Just scroll up to the top of this discussion, will ya, read down to here and report back. --Pete (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you please point to something specific. It is quite a lot to read. I guess I deserve some respect. :)DockuHi 00:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In my opinion Docku has quite clearly shown he has read the discussion on this talk page and he has summarised in the section #Response to Gnangarra and a suggestion for a compromise (introduction). Moreover he is focussing on content not editors as per WP:NPA. I appreciate his attempt to focus on the issues and offer a compromise.
    While a small number of people are associated with the ICC action group, as Docku refers elsewhere in his response there were major protests against the war. These are not mentioned currently in the John Howard article.
    The Howard article is currently very incomplete because as a result of issues raised therein I suggested that we have a separate article on the Howard Government (nominated as different name initially) ... the intent was to separate Howard the man from the actions of his Government where appropriate - it wasn't a one-man show entirely and there were things in the John Howard article that could not be attributed usefully to Howard the man. I also nominated the Howard Government article for ACOTF and ... it currently is the ACOTF.
    In the process of developing the Howard Government article I removed information from the John Howard article - not all of it should not be duplicated in the John Howard article in my view - for example in the section Howard Government#Iraq we state

    Australian opinion was deeply divided on the war and large public protests against the war occurred.[29] Several senior figures from the Liberal party, including John Valder, a former president of the Liberal Party, and Howard's former friend and colleague, former Opposition Leader John Hewson and former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser publicly criticised Howard over Iraq.[30] John Valder's criticism was particularly strong, claiming that Howard should be tried and punished as a war criminal.[31]

    This is personal to Howard as well as being a feature of the Howard Government. There are probably other events which also need to be duplicated in order to ensure balance in both articles - how to achieve balanced articles without undue repetitiveness is probably only a matter that can be dealt with when tensions generally have been defused.
    In response then to the suggested wording - yes it is a start but perhaps there is more that can be added as per the Howard Govt current content I quoted above. It may belong under George Bush section or in the now-unbalanced area of Prime Minister.
    I think also there is some ambiguity as to whether a loosely associated ICC action group is somehow loosely associated with the Malaysian PM - I realise careful reading ensures no such confusion but tweaking can ensure that a quick and careless reader is not left with the probably wrong impression.
    --Matilda talk 00:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
FWIW I have no problem with recording the allegations of war crimes by Valder and Mahatir; both are notable as Valder was a former ally of JH, and Mahatir was a foreign leader. ICCAction is not notable since it seems to be the work of a private individual, and allegations by Laborites, Democrats etc are not notable since they are political opponents of the Libs and it can be assumed that they opposed the Libs. If Laborites or Democrats supported the Iraq war, however, that might be notable. --Surturz (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't document criticism when it comes from political opponents, because it is just assumed? I can't agree with that at all. I certainly don't assume every australian politician that opposed the invasion thinks Howard should be referred to an international court. You can assert the event never happened, or that it came from non-notable persons, but you cannot exclude content simply based on the political affiliation of the person/group it comes from. MickMacNee (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Just how much space in our encyclopaedia should we give to the words of cranks and axe-grinders? Mahatir Mohammed might accuse Howard of war crimes but he also accuses political opponents of sodomy. Sure, he's a notable person, but I think such allegations better belong in his article rather than those of his targets. My problem with this whole war crimes thing is that it is the view of a tiny minority, pushing their view through stunts and press releases, fighting hard for every single word of coverage. Including here in Wikipedia, I suspect. --Pete (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
With due respect, could you please specify whom you call cranks and axe grinders?? DockuHi 01:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It was a rhetorical question. I wasn't thinking of you specifically. Beg pardon. --Pete (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
"fighting hard for every single word of coverage. Including here in Wikipedia, I suspect" I suggest you either substantiate that comment beyond a vague notion, or strike it out as not relevant. MickMacNee (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Note Skyring's response to this request was to bold the entire sentences. [2] MickMacNee (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Whether it is rhetorical or not, It came off a little offensive to my ears. I will follow WP:DTTR and not remind you of WP:Civil guidelines. We have heard your personal opinion on this topic and would encourage some discussion on specific wikipedia policy. Thanks. DockuHi 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A modest proposal

I've just had a brilliant idea. How about if everyone tries this:

  1. If you're going to talk about the article, use normal text, like this sentence.
  2. If you're going to comment about another editor's behavior, use small text, like this.
  3. If you're going to comment about another editor's failure to follow this suggestion, also use small text.

After a while, it will become apparent to outside editors who among you is:

  1. Not following this suggestion.
  2. Making most of their comments about other editors, not the article

In this way, people who are interested in just talking about the article can read the normal text, ignore the small text. People who are interested in arguing can focus on the small text, not the normal text. The "winner" of the talk page will be the one who writes the least amount of small text.

If I were GodKing, I would just demand that everyone do this. Since I'm not, it's just a suggestion. But imagine if it worked; we could export it to other talk pages, as the "Talk:John Howard solution", and you would all be considered trailblazers. Oh, and as a side benefit, it might actually improve the article. --barneca (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

sarcasm is the lowest form of wit Sort of like that? :) I think everyone is able to spot comment that is clearly about the specific disputed content/relevant policies or not. The signal/noise problem the rest causes is a problem for readability, hence the poll above to attempt to show what people have/haven't got from the factual parts of the discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi barneca, I like your good will idea. I will try to follow (no guarantees though!) :). DockuHi 23:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
BUT WHAT IF I WANT TO TYPE IN BOLDED SCREAMING CAPS? :-)--Surturz (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Feel free - it is an opt in poposal! Bold screaming caps will get you noticed - probably won't be refactored until you make them flash as well - see refactoring elsewhere with comment remove all blinking... this is a discussion, not an HTML competition . Ultimately of course everybody is probably more interested in comments about content rather than editing behaviour. de-emphasising the comments about behaviour improves readability in the sense of allowing us to discuss the content issues and that this the purpose of this page. Note at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. - Somebody might not change the formatting of your comment - they may remove them as irrelevant to the page. --Matilda talk 02:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
As someone with impaired vision, I find people typing in smaller text extremely unhelpful. Orderinchaos 02:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, how about green text? --barneca (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I support good faith compromise. as always. But I have to admit that it is hard to make sure that I follow this when in a hurry to send a message. DockuHi 21:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Iraq war opposition

Well, Orderinchaos claims that Iraq war opposition (public protest) has been included in other articles and therefore shouldnt be included here. Any comments on this welcome.. DockuHi 02:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out how the ICC text is includable in the article 'Howard Government' rather than 'John Howard', despite the fact the ICC and a time expired govt have no connection at all. There is no logic to be found in these statements, as they are not being made from any position of logic or policy, just personal opinion governed by political belief. MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I am willing to do a policy oriented discussion about that in the relevant article. DockuHi 18:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, it has been almost a week since this idea was proposed. I am going to add this information and I hope it will not be reverted immediately. Ideas to improve on this edit is certainly welcome. DockuHi 17:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation removed.

One might think, what with all the hoo-har over that ICC stuff, that current editors would have familiarised themselves with the Biographies of Living People policies. Let me quote an important part of this policy:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Looking at the material in the article about John Howard and the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, I find that it is unsourced, and is controversial enough to be the subject of an edit war. Accordingly, I have removed it. That "bunker" in the Australian embassy sounds rather unlikely to me. In fact, I have removed it twice over, both times noting that I have done so under WP:BLP for being unsourced. I note that User:MickMacNee has been edit-warring over this material, against warnings. --Pete (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that we have a source for the bunker - I'm surprised at this, but I've been wrong before, and I'm grateful for the source. However, the rest of it is unsourced and I'm removing the whole lot, as the bunker bit isn't really much of a stand-alone necessity for this BLP. I'm also going to do a 3RR report on MickMac, because of the 4 reverts. --Pete (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There no BLP issue with the bunker, it just need sourcing tag as {{fact}} and move on. I have requested full protection this the third edit war in the last week - 10 days. Gnangarra 11:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
BLP is pretty clear, and though we have a source for the bunker, most of the rest of the material is unsourced. Given the recent history of this article, I think that MicMacNee should have been particularly careful to follow the letter of wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Article should not be locked ..Again! There's no BLP issue. It's just the usual excuse that's regularly used to start a revert frezie. Locking the article is just tolerating the warriors, as the warriors successfully lock everyone else out.--Lester 11:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think that the PM/911 stuff is hugely contentious in itself. What really bugs me is that it became the focus for edit-warring rather than discussion. I'm within my rights to remove it under BLP for being (largely) unsourced, though I'll admit that's wikiprecious.
But just how much of our lives are we going to spend arguing over trivia here? --Pete (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have absolutely no objection to a version of the added material in question coming back at some time. My issue was more in the random insertion of it where it not only breaks the flow but seems to carry more weight than it merits. The Australian Journal of Political Science (42(2) I think but will have to check) has an entire article on Howard in the US at Sep 11, how he was received by Congress, how it affected the decisions he made afterward etc. It's not a BLP issue, and for once is actually relevant to the man rather than some other thing. Just has to be done appropriately rather than randomly. Orderinchaos 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah - cite is: DeBats, Donald A. (2007). "Mr Howard goes to Washington: September 11, the Australian-American relationship and attributes of leadership". Australian Journal of Political Science. 42 (2). Routledge: 231–252. ISSN 1036-1146. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Orderinchaos 12:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case, then there was never a case for the material to be rapidly deleted, as it was. Instead, the capable wordsmiths among us only needed to put their talent to work by rewording the material to give it context and flow.--Lester 14:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that right now there is nowhere for the material to go without sticking out like a sore thumb. The "Prime Minister" section of this article is barely in a stub state at the moment. If we could agree on a way to rectify that, then we could discuss how the appropriate content may go into the article. Orderinchaos 15:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no BLP violation here. It is an important information written in too much details thus sounding like a trivia. A rewording to make it concise and inserting at an appropriate place (if there is one) should be fine. I dont see any urgency in removing or adding this material as it is not potentially damaging to the subject. When the edit warriors refrain themselves from their obsessive compulsive reaction of reverting when something they dont like (or something inserted or removed by people they dont like) is in the article, and rather choose to reason with others in a polite and civil fashion in the discussion page, lot of trouble and time can be saved. DockuHi 15:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - it's completely neutral in a political sense, it's a matter of isolating the salient issues and writing about those. The problem we have here is a slightly bigger one that the "Prime Minister" section, which should ultimately contain the information, is in such a poor state at present that we need to think how that might be reworked such that this information, in an appropriate form, can be accommodated. All ideas are welcome on this one, although probably the soundest ones would relate to structure and perhaps constructing a timeline. Orderinchaos 17:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
To start with, quotes of his vision of Australia, his position on GST, opinion on Pauline Hanson and his attack on Labour's economic history seem to interrupt the flow of information and can be kept aside for the specific The Howard Government article. They can rather be phrased into simple sentences. His presence in US during Sep 11 can be moved to "Relationship with Bush". In fact, "Relationship with Bush" can be renamed. One option is "Iraq War and relationship with Bush". DockuHi 17:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I must admit I rather like the chronological approach taken by two featured biographical articles, Don Dunstan (former Labor premier of South Australia) and Thomas Playford IV (former Liberal premier of South Australia). Hadn't thought about their relevance to this article until tonight, but the structure which is basically freeform text broken into sections works extremely well and tells a story. The situation with regard to Pauline Hanson belongs more in the biography than in the Howard Government article as it doesn't relate to how Howard's Cabinet governed but was more a party matter within which he took (or arguably did not take) a particular role—the separation is probably (although somewhat artificially) that this article would look like a biographical summary of the man, noting where he came from, what he did, what positions he espoused, his direct impact etc (which to some extent can be sourced from Quarterly Essay, Aust J of Political Science, his two biographies in 1997 and 2007, etc) while the HG article is more like the achievements and events surrounding the Government he led (which may or may not have had a great deal to do with Howard himself), the sort of things you'd find in the Political Chronicles in the Aust Journal of Politics and History, and various other academic sources backed up where necessary by contemporary news coverage. Orderinchaos 20:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I've quickly reviewed both articles and they stand as a shining contrast to this one. Coherent, consistent and complete. High time for a complete rewrite here, but it needs to be made with care and co-operation. Maybe we can establish a "shadow" or "sand-pit" article until it reaches a form we all agree on, then we can switch it with what we have now. Of course the existing article can be mined for references and material. --Pete (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking for some sort of model or ideal to work from for almost three months, and I'm amazed I didn't think to look at these two. I think the "sandpit" idea is a good one. I'd laugh if one day we're sending this one to FAC given all the conflict we've seen to date. Orderinchaos 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It's been more than 24 hours now so I'm going to try unprotecting. Please be warned, though, that if edit warring resumes, I will just reprotect the page. So please use the talk pages to discuss material rather than edit warring. Sarah 15:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Aus_spice" :
    • {{cite web | url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21293182-28737,00.html | title=Asian influence spices up contest | publisher=[[The Australian]] | date=[[27 February]] [[2007]] | accessdate=2007-07-27}}
    • {{cite web | url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21293182-28737,00.html | title=Asian influence spices up contest | publisher=''[[The Australian]]'' | date=[[27 February]] [[2007]] | accessdate=2007-07-27}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

DumZiBoT, I draw your attention to WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Being non-sentient is no excuse for ignoring WP policy. You pro-ALP bias is obvious, this article has had a lot of POV-pushers before and this blatant disregard of WP:NPOV is unacceptable. This is not a forum to air your dissatisfaction with John Howard --Surturz (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
:D Orderinchaos 19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

call for war crime trials by Mahathir

Well, I am proposing to add Malaysian prime Minister Mahathir's call to charge western leaders including John Howard for war crimes. The reference is here. opinions welcome. DockuHi 17:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This has more relevance to Mahathir bin Mohamad than his targets, but is not mentioned in his article. --Pete (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It is(was) mentioned in Blair article in post politics as the criticism was repeated when Blair was invited to speak in Malaysia and Mahathir criticised the choice of Blair. Gnangarra 13:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You are right, it is still there, though it shouldnt matter if it is still there or not. DockuHi 15:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Critisism has a more suitable place in the target's page while I dont mind including that in Mahathir's page also, if it helps defining the character of the person. Paul Keating's description of Mahathir as "recalictrant" in Mahathir's article here is an example. I would not discard the opinion of a democratically elected representative of about 27 million people as irrelevant.
Quote from WP:NPOV, Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Mentioning the great relationship he enjoyed with Bush but not the criticism from another national leader is a violation of WP:NPOV. DockuHi 13:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Docku here, his relations with other notable world leaders should be given equivalent weight. The issue would be how significant is Mahathir as a world leader, what was the relation between JH and Mahathir as leaders, rather than the relationship between countries. There was(is) alot of lingering resentment between the governments of the two countries because of Keatings remarks. Gnangarra 13:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
In assessing "how significant is Mahathir as a world leader" - that is not an absolute but needs also to be read in the context of Malaysian Australian bilateral relations - Mahathir is more significant as a world leader in the Australian context than say the leader of Denmark might be (notwithstandig "Our Mary" and the frequent reporting of her, he husband and her children in our news media). There is no doubt that Mahathir is one of the world leaders recognisable by Australians - possibly because of Keating's remarks, possibly because of his longevity and almost certainly because Malaysia is an important country to Australia - not sure if the perception is reciprocated. --Matilda talk 21:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Good points both of you. In fact, I have never considered him a strong world leader, not that it matters. While, we may have disagreements about whether Mahathir can be considered a world leader, as a leader of a democratically elected nation, his opinions are notable (while it may probably have no strong global political implications), worthy and relevant enough to be included as it is within the norms of wikipedia policies. DockuHi 22:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Equating Mahathir with George Bush as an example of WP:NPOV seems odd, more so when considering that balancing "the great relationship he enjoyed with Bush" with "criticism from another national leader" is a matter of oranges and apples. Two quite different topics. Balancing Mahathir's fruity views would require some commentary about war crimes and why Howard is unlikely to be charged - the relationship with Bush is quite irrelevant. I feel that some editors are more concerned about linking Howard with accusations of war crimes, regardless of how ridiculous that is, than in providing a full and balanced picture.
Again, I point out that if Howard is ever charged with war crimes, then it's a legitimate and important story, worthy of inclusion. Including unfounded accusations as if they were serious merely misleads our readers. Let's stick with facts rather than speculation. --Pete (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
We are not equating Bush and Mahathir. We are just talking about opposing views and presentation of those views in the article. Well, in essence, we are talking about including criticism of Mahathir in the article (just like it is included in Tony Blair article). I dont see it violates any wikipedia policy. If you think it does, we would like to hear about the specific policy it violates (which you think) and the your explanation why it does? DockuHi 04:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I rebutted your views above, pointing out the flaw in your argument - namely that you were trying to balance Howard's close relationship with Bush against Mahathir's criticism of Howard. These are two different topics. The long Criticism of Tony Blair article goes into some detail about the Iraq war, but does not include Mahathir's comments about Bush, Blair and Howard being war criminals, worse than Radovan Karadzic.
As for specific policy, let me quote from WP:UNDUE: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. No matter how noisy, nor how prominent the proponents may be, Mahathir's view that John Howard is a war criminal is a tiny minority view. Mahathir is not a world leader. He is not even a national leader. In this matter, he is the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society, complete with dubious websites.
If you want to criticise Howard for participating in a disastrous war, then do so using legitimate sources. Surely we don't have to resort to wild claims of war crimes from the fringe. --Pete (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
We are not comparing apples and oranges. We are noting supporter's appreciation and opposer's critisim. The reason it is not in Tony Blair article is because a person involved in this discussion just removed it. While it is in everyone's right to remove it, not mentioning it here can be considered disingenuous.
Opposition to Iraq war and criticism of it is certainly not a tiny minority view and not a fringe as well, not at all compared to the flat-earth belief. Therefore, I dont think it violates WP:UNDUE.
Well, I know surturz and Orderinchaos have already expressed their opinions here and here. I would like to hear more opinion and see how it goes. DockuHi 11:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Opposition to Iraq war and criticism of it is certainly not a tiny minority view. Nobody said it was. But calling John Howard a war criminal is a different thing, and very much the view of a tiny minority. Again, you are either confusing two different things, or deliberately misrepresenting the points made. Either way, I'm not sure that you should be editing an encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
You are setting up a Strawman argument. While I am talking about Mahathir's criticism of Iraq war in his own words, you force me to defend against war crimes, which I know I can not defend and dont need to. DockuHi 12:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
More misrepresentation. You said, in the very first post in this section, Well, I am proposing to add Malaysian prime Minister Mahathir's call to charge western leaders including John Howard for war crimes. That isn't generalised criticism of the Iraq war. It's a specific attack on John Howard, stating that he is a war criminal.[3] In addition, Mahathir is not the Malaysian prime minister - that position has been held for the past five years by Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. --Pete (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this edit, User:Docku has changed his original proposal from: Well, I am proposing to add Malaysian prime Minister Mahathir's call to charge western leaders including John Howard for war crimes. The reference is here. opinions welcome. to this: Well, I am proposing to add former Malaysian prime Minister Mahathir's criticism of iraq war and John Howard in his own words. The reference is here. opinions welcome.. I have restored the original wording, to which several other editors have responded. --Pete (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Pls dont change my edits though. DockuHi 13:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism by Mahathir

New Proposal: Well, I am proposing to add former Malaysian prime Minister Mahathir's criticism of Iraq war and John Howard in his own words. The reference is here. opinions welcome. DockuHi 14:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


Straw poll

While discussing the topic above, pls mark your opinion distinct by support, oppose or neutral. Support means inclusion of mahathir's criticism.

  • Support. as per my comments above. DockuHi 14:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose improve the reference I'll asses that but one from the SMH attributes Mahathir statement to a second hand account by the event organiser said a spokesman for the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim group that organised the event. and Spokesman Mohammed Shafiq told AFP that Mahathir, who was in office from 1981 to 2003, wanted to see the trio tried "in absence for war crimes committed in Iraq". it doesnt actually directly quote Mahathir. Gnangarra 15:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Gnangarras comments: I respect your opinion. But Mahathir would have denied those claims if he was not supportive of it. I couldnt find his denials anywhere. If he has denied those claims attributed to him, I agree with you that we dont need to waste our time talking about this. DockuHi 15:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

but you did say Malaysian prime Minister Mahathir's criticism of Iraq war and John Howard in his own words. and the source isnt in Mahathirs own words. Gnangarra 15:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it about how I form the sentence, not the reference? I am ready to form a sentence which is a fair reflection of the reference. DockuHi 15:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Docku could put down his actual proposed wording for comment? --Pete (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - the war crimes issue needs context. The context to me is that Mahathir is lining Howard up with Bush and Blair. Others have associated Howard with Bush and Blair too and Howard was keen to be seen in their company - part of being a "world leader".
    Mahathir has been vocal on war crimes for some time. See for example this January 2007 announcement of the creation of a war crimes tribunal that would focus on victims of abuse in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. This SBS ref is similar to the SMH one and they both seem to be based on AFP . I do not think the objection by Gnangarra is very useful. Mahathir spoke to a group and that group's spokesman reported his speech. Perhaps quoting directly from his speech would be better but it would seem "outsiders were barred" and there was some censorship according to a Malaysian news report .
    This page refers to

    The Kuala Lumpur War Crime Commission chaired by former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad heard nine charges against US President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister John Howard for the sufferings of the people in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.
    The charges against the US and its allies were presented by the legal counsel on behalf of the war crime victims, Matthias Chang, before Dr Mahathir and the other five commission members at the final day of the three-day war crimes conference organised by the Perdana Global Peace Conference.
    Chang said Bush, Blair and Howard, through a deliberate plan of deception, falsehood, forgery and outright lies, misled their respective Congress and Parliament to wage war against Iraq which was a "crime against peace."
    The trio were also being charged for embarking on a systematic campaign to destroy Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine economically and militarily, he said.
    He said the third charge against them was for ordering the destruction of vital facilities essential to civilian lives in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine while the fourth was for the bombing of schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, residential areas and historical sites and conveniently labelling the destruction as "collateral damage".
    The three leaders were also charged with allowing the use of weapons of mass destruction that inflicted indiscriminate death and suffering against civilian targets such as the cluster bomb, napalm bomb, phosporous bomb and depleted uranium ammunition, said Chang.
    The sixth charge said that Bush, Blair and Howard have fraudulently manipulated the United Nations and the Security Council as well as corrupting its members to commit crimes against peace and war times, he said.

    There are a number of things to be tackled and it seems to me we are getting tied up in knots approaching it bit by bit. I don't know why the Perdana Global Peace Conference hasn't had more airplay - I can speculate but ... I think it is more symptomatic of WP:Bias than lack of notability. See for example this page (Probably not a reliable source but still useful for some context). The article on Perdana Leadership Foundation is all but a stub. There is no mention of Mahathir in Criticism of the Iraq War, Opposition to the Iraq War, Legality of the Iraq War or any related article. Seems surprising to me given Malaysia is a country with a significant Muslim population : (60% Muslim population - ie 60% of 27.5m = 16.5m Muslims) . Such a mention would give further neutrality to the article. However, I accept that Mahathir's tribunal has been criticised as by a former United Nations senior official and activists, who say the body lacks legitimacy. ...there was no legal basis for the tribunal which would become a "circus". [4]
    I note also that Mahathir's article states In February 2007, four non-governmental organizations: the Sarajevo School of Science and Technology, the Congress of Bosniak Intellectuals, and two Christian organizations: the Serb Civil Council and the Croat National Council, nominated Mahathir for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work during the conflict - the same time as KL war crime commission / Perdana Global Peace Conference.
    Quite frankly it seems to me that this topic needs some addressing and in a structured well thought out way. Adding a bit here or there appears not to be working (though in my view it is better than saying nothing). Could we have a sub-page which tackles the topic, the question of sources, and the question of associated articles? --Matilda talk 23:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
response to I do not think the objection by Gnangarra is very useful. Mahathir spoke to a group and that group's spokesman reported his speech. Perhaps quoting directly from his speech would be better but it would seem "outsiders were barred" and there was some censorship according to a Malaysian news report . I said the source being quoted isnt the words of Mahathir but that of an event organisor saying he said, now your saying my opinion isnt very useful, noting skyring is block for making a very similar remark that was referred to as being a PA. That aside you agree that its the words of the event organisor, then even go on to say that it was a closed event that was subject to (as reported by Malaysian sources) censorship. This only makes the comments from that event as being very suspect. Provide a source that quotes Mahathir directly, that isnt from this event but an actual public comment then I reconsider. Gnangarra 05:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Gnangarra seeks a Mahathir quote. In the Blair context the BBC quotes him as saying in 2007:

      Dr Mahathir said: "What is Blair if not the co-murderer of 500,000 Iraqi children and the liar who told the British that Saddam had WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) which could be launched against Britain within 45 minutes?
      "History should remember Blair and Bush as the 'killers of children'." [5]

    • Perhaps we could just say fort he time being in this article that there was opposition - once again from the BBC but in 2003

      There were large-scale protests in many major Australian cities over the weekend, and on Monday hundreds of people tried to storm the parliament building.
      Inside the building, Prime Minister John Howard was repeatedly heckled from the public gallery.
      Mr Howard has been one of America's staunchest allies in its stance against Baghdad, and 2,000 Australian troops are participating in the US-led war.
      But the prime minister has faced stiff opposition from the Australian public, many of whom are against the conflict.
      Opinion polls are, however, swinging in Mr Howard's favour.
      A poll commissioned last week found that 47% of respondents were against military action compared to 70% the previous week. [6]

      --Matilda talk 00:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Surturz (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - unless someone can tell me why the opinion of Mahathir is more notable than his normal anti-western/anti-white-person rantings.--Merbabu (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment:Some answers to your question may be found here. That was a response to User:Skyring from User:Nil Einne in Tony Blair article talk page. It is really not upto the wikipedia editors to analyse and decide what is in our opinion right to add to articles. Any relevant, notable materials which does not violate any of the wikipedia policies can or should be added to the article regardless of whether we like it or not. Our job is really to focus on wikipedia policies. I would like to draw your attention to this quote from WP:VERI, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I believe that this disputed edit conforms to WP:Verifiability, WP:reliable sources. Not adding the edit may be violation of WP:NPOV. However, I start to believe that adding the edit may be a violation of WP:UNDUE, unless someone has a different explanation to convince me otherwise. Therefore, I am also not going to push for the inclusion in the article though I was the one who proposed it. I, however, do think this is one of the most unbalanced articles I have come across. DockuHi 14:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Your suggesting the article is unbalanced because we haven’t listed the views of a racist hypocrite (he berates the “white” man for their inherent racism – isn’t that in itself racist? While he presided over a govt and constitution that enshrines racism). Yet, the Howard Govt kept getting re-elected during a period of economic growth, low inflation, and high unemployment unprecedented in degree and duration. The feeling was one of great prosperity and the perception – correct or otherwise – was that govt, howard and Costello were largely responsible. Now, whether this credit is appropriately attributed is irrelevant (yes, I know about the Hawke/Keating reforms), it is the *perception* of great economic success of the govt is what was strikingly notable, but to my reading, not mentioned. As a minimum, the econimic success of Australia should be mentioned, even if the article doesn't directly attribute it to Howard and govt.
So, the notion of “imbalance” – Mahathir and economic management – swings both ways. --Merbabu (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


National Textiles

I'm surprised that Howard's bailing out of hi brother's company is not mentioned. I think it is notable enough. IIRC< it was quite a big topic at the time. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Add it, Blnguyen. --Lester 08:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It is an issue worth covering - it got considerable coverage at the time and raised considerable questions about favouritism, given that other companies had failed at around the same time and did not get favourable government attention. Orderinchaos 16:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if occasionally, just occasionally, you guys found content that was favourable to JH to add to the article. --Surturz (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
How about you find favourable content and add it then? This encyclopedia is not here to make you personally feel warm and fuzzy. Content is king, so quit complaining and get to it already. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive

POV tag Aug 2008

The article is clearly unbalanced. Latest edit by Surturz removed reference to Iraq war protests. It was unbalanced before - it is even more unbalanced now.--Matilda talk 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It belongs in Howard Government, if anywhere (although public opposition to the war is already documented there). The protests were not about JH himself, nor were they protests about his personal relationship with GWB. Whoever added that text should find a more appropriate place to include them. The text does not belong in the "Relationship with GWB" section. --Surturz (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to moving the comments, I have an objection to nothing being mentioned in this article on the subject at all. It is not merely a function of the Howard government - although I believe it belongs there too, as I have said repeatedly above it is personal to Howard too and a major feature of the later years of his term as prime minister. I am not sure that the link with Bush is that tenuous. Their relationship predated the war but Howard's support of Bush's actions obviously strengthened the personal relationship as well as US Australian bilateral relations. However, I am not concerned if it appears in the section with Bush or elsewhere, I am concerned that it appears nowhere. There are plenty of other omissions too but let's continue to deal with this one. --Matilda talk 21:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
While Howard Government article should serve to have detailed description of his Government, it needs not be used as a pretext to move all criticism from here thus unbalancing the main article Howard was the head of the government, thus any criticism of his government is certainly applicable to him. I dont see any problem in having some important informations overlapping in two articles. In fact, I am suggesting to make a criticism section in this article just like in Manmohan Singh (I am not claiming that this is the best example though) which should detail (or list) all criticisms he received during his career. Quote from WP:NPOV, All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. DockuHi 21:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
A criticism section is a disaster. Sorry to be blunt. It’s like trivia lists. It just becomes a dumping ground for any one with an axe to grind. Even worse for the axe-grinders, there would have to be a separate section for praise, of equal length of course, for that “balance” notion and due weight. I’ve got a headache already thinking about the opportunity for edit wars, rfc’s, and failed mediation requests.
Rather, if there is criticism for a political personality – and my threshold for inclusion is clearly higher than some here – then it should be well-written and interwoven into the article’s prose at the appropriate subject section. There’s even a tag/template we could pull to encourage they be incorporated into the article. --Merbabu (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What a shame to see a fat ugly POV tag slapped on. I’m surprised that it has come from Matilda, rather than one of the usual suspects of reactionary and combative editors this page attracts (apparently representing all apparent POVs). Is there not a better way to solve this? Come on, one edit you don’t like and an ugly tag is slapped on for all our *readers* to see. A tag – IMO – is tantamount to digging a trench, and an announcement of impending stalemate.

I agree that a mention of the Iraq war is required, but on the other hand, I agree that a list of criticisers is not what we’re here to provide. Putting in criticism in any article is not a way to make “balance” (whatever that is). It just makes wikipedia sound whiny and bratty. It’s blatantly see-through as POV. Mention by all means the Iraq War, and JH and GWB relationship but let people make up their own minds. A list of detractors (and what about supporters?) is silly - putting someone like Mahathir – for example – as a credible opinion is laughable.

Can you reconsider Matilda? Surturz? I’m sure you can work it out. --Merbabu (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds more like a personal attack. I would not respond to it. I guess reporting is better. DockuHi 22:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
A personal attack? I don't understand. Who are you suggesting is attacking who? Please explain. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I quote from above "axe-grinders" and "usual suspects of reactionary and combative editors this page attracts (apparently representing all apparent POVs)". DockuHi 22:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I’ve asked to avoid trench warfare, requested cooperation, and suggested a middle ground position. Now, you want to report me for a personal attack? I think you need to re-read it. --Merbabu (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain what all these mean "axe-grinders" and "usual suspects of reactionary and combative editors this page attracts (apparently representing all apparent POVs). Thanks. DockuHi 23:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I could - on your talk page. Any comments on the 2nd paragraph? - ie, the suggestions on content. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I see. That means, the first paragraph was? DockuHi 00:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Am a bit busy right now so cannot respond in detail but I apologise if it looks like my reaction ot jsut one edit. It isn't. It is the response to a very long discussion (see above while not archived) and we are getting no where. I ahve suggested taking it to a sub-page. I have agreed to several compromise edits. I have responded to the RfC above. This is not a one-on-one discussion. At present the article is unbalanced - I do not think I am the only one to hold that view. The tag is calling the unbalanced article unbalanced - no more no less. --Matilda talk 00:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
OK no worries. I've been bold and moved it down to the section involved. If you don't like this, pls revert and I won't revert it. I hope you leave it though. :-) (actually, there is somewhere a tag that applies to a section) I too am meant to be busy but will try to look into it more soon. --Merbabu (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Further and very generally, the stalemates here a sourced not so much in all the different (perceived) POV's amongst us editors, but what I see as fundamental disagreements here over what a wikipedia article should be. It appears that for some, listing criticisms and justifying the opinion’s notability against a personality is necessary to maintain NPOV (although, on a tangent, where is the corresponding praise for “balance”?). Whereas for me, and a few others (possibly Orderinchaos for one?) this seems to be particularly whiny and bratty way to write an article. I would rather see a cohesive essay style article of prose that just states what happened and minimises (or even banishes) all the commentary that is insisted upon for “balance” and NPOV. The suggested Don Chipp article is a beautiful example provided earlier of what could be done. There was another biography offered recently as an example of what to aspire to. who was it? Orderinchaos – when are you going to provide your long promised re-write of this horrible article? ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I personally am not particularly interested in merely listing criticisms, happy to take on board any attempt to incorporate some facts - positive and negative. Hapyt to discuss structure too. My attempt to add something resulted in personal attacks here and at WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:BLP, WP:3RR and an RfC (above disguised as a policy RfC). We haven't even got to the fundamental disagreement or agreement of what a wikipedia article should be - though it is possible that that underlying issue may account for some of the difference when it comes to the trivia. We argue to the point of no resolution sentence by sentence in a totally nonconstructive and non-collaborative way. --Matilda talk 01:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm - there has been, at times, also considerable consensus across political editing bias. The creation of the Howard Govt article (for which you were largely responsible) got almost universal support (as it should have). We need a few more masterstrokes like that. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Look, if editors want to attack JH in his own BLP, please at least do it with facts. Don't like the Iraq War? Quote how many Australian troops died, how much it cost, what international sanctions against Australia were incurred, FACTS of that sort. Hunting around for suitably eminent Howard-detractors to quote, or allegations of War Crimes when it is patently clear that JH is not a war criminal, is wasting everyone's time. What war HASN'T been protested by a portion of the population of the country waging it? The protest is not fit for inclusion. --Surturz (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Well I have tried again per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle using the BBC ref cited above. I note Surturz's "constructive criticism" in particular that referring to specific detractos is unhelpful. However, I don't think the issue is the "cost" - "good" and "bad" wars cost. The lack of opposition to the intervention in East Timor wasn't because of cost - it was because it was (by and large) seen as the right thing to do. The public's perception of the intervention in Iaq was not similarly characterised. Matilda talk 04:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'e made it clear that like Surturz i don't support the digging up of "notable" detractors to provide criticism for "balance". Instead, the majority Australian opposition to the war should, and already is quoted using an opinion poll. That's more notable than, say, the former PM of Malaysia slagging off (once again) the Australian PM. The majority opposition is, as Matilda points out, the big difference between the East Timor exercise and iraq. --Merbabu (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ummm - just to clarify - I could not see anything on the majority Australian opposition to the war should, and already is quoted using an opinion poll. other than what I just added so I read it that you (Merbabu) support the addition?--Matilda talk 05:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was less than clear: a million other things in my head today as I spend too much time away from my work duties.
My point being, IMO stating that the majority of Australians apparently did not support the war (or our involvement) is a much better way to provide “criticism” or “balance” than by quoting the opinion of detractors, whether this criticism be war criminal petitions to the ICC or Mahathir who has a long history of criticising Australia, its government, and the West in general. ie, such criticism from Mahathir can almost always be guaranteed, such that both sides of Aust government and commentators tend to ignore it - or even ridicule it - it becomes, in the eys of many, almost worthless.
That Australians largely appeared to have been against the war but Howard went in anyway is very important, and makes the other criticisms look trivial. Your inclusion of poll data to support this point was a small masterstroke – it contributes towards a much more mature article in comparison to a listing of “notable” criticisms and commentators. Thanks --Merbabu (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

2007 election section - needs trimming

Could the section on the 2007 election be condensed? Say by half? It’s very long. Remember, this is a biography and a summary. I suggest the excised info gets moved into Australian federal election, 2007 if not already there.

I might try and tackle this in the next few days. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

About to archive and close off RfC

The page is currently 260kb long - optimally should be less than 40kb. I propose to archive the discussion concerning the Iraq War and close off the RfC. The RfC was raised on 3 August - more than 2 weeks ago. It attracted some comment immediately, a proposal (1RR) that was not supported and to which no further comment has been added since 8 August, a response by the main editor (me) named in the RfC on 14 August also with a recommendation which nobody has commented on. I think enough time has lapsed that it can be archived but if somebody disagrees please say so. I propose to leave the National Textiles comment, the POV tag comment and the comment relating to trimming the 2007 election plus have a pointer to the archive. --Matilda talk 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with closing the RfC. Its framing was not neutral. There were mass reverts and incivility. Under such conditions it was not representative of the community view. It should be closed. --Lester 23:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  Can of course be reverted if anyone wishes to --Matilda talk 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the major point made by my RfC was that the addition of controversial material by one editor set off a major row, with edit-warring, wikilawyering, trolling and general unpleasantness. After discussion, the material was not permanently included in the article. As noted above, it's patently obvious that John Howard is not a war criminal, and including fringey attempts to label him as one is not useful to readers, without maybe some sort of balancing opinion about the fringiness of the attempts. Although one could always start off a page about Attempts to charge John Howard for war crimes, which would be useful for those few with a genuine interest. We have good articles on Flat Earth and Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories, for example. --Pete (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


Iraq War

I haven't removed it yet, but the 'poll results' in this section is dubious. It could be an online poll for all we know. Could we please have a credible poll quoted for this text? --Surturz (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes but the source is the BBC and that surely meets reliable sources - after all somebody didn't like the ABC before! - however, I will go and have a look - there must be other sources - I just thought we seem to be against the home grown so foreigners always sound better ... I really ought to do some gardening ... --Matilda talk 01:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I’ve made it clear (and triggered some BLP sensitivities in the process) that I think Australians’ large opposition to the war (and to Australia’s involvement?) is far more notable than list of detractors’ opinion. It’s a huge point having a govt send troops to an unpopular war and the PM seemed to have been the main driving force behind the decision.

Thus, surely we can find credible poll results for this? I seem to remember them floating around the media at the time. I wouldn’t know where to look though. --Merbabu (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

    • IMO BBC writing about Australia can be very sketchy. They seem to base their stories on articles in other newspapers. Better to get a reference to the Australian newspaper they are quoting. I'm not against home papers FWIW. I do think many editors fail to realise that although ABC, BBC, etc are WP:RS, the quality of journalism can vary vastly from story to story depending on whether it is a front page article, opinion article, a puff piece, etc. If poll numbers are quoted without quoting the name of the poll, it is probably not a reputable pollster. --Surturz (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Both the BBC and ABC get things wrong. If, on checking, specific information from a usually reliable source is found to be incorrect or unreliable, it can't be somehow made correct or reliable by pointing to the track record of the media outlet. If something is incorrect, it's incorrect. That 70% figure seems way too high, and I'd like to see some polling figures from a reliable source, such as Gallop or Morgan, rather than an unspecified source, which could well be an internet or radio poll. Incidentally, I must congratulate Matilda on her foresight in storing this material for five years, judging by the access date. --Pete (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Url, publisher & date quote+ comment if any
SMH 20 March 2003 ~
Australian article (2006) THE Government is sticking by its troop commitment to Iraq despite the findings of a poll that 84 per cent of respondents believed the US-led invasion had done nothing to lessen the threat of terrorism.
The Government says the poll was skewed to ignore the risks of surrendering to terrorism.
Labor used the figures to renew its criticism of the Howard Government's decision to join the US-led invasion of Iraq, describing it as a "spectacular foreign policy failure".
The poll, conducted by the Lowy Institute for International Policy, found 84 per cent of respondents believed the war in Iraq had done nothing to lessen the threat of terrorism.
The survey of more than 2000 people found 67 per cent disagreed with the claim that the US-led invasion would lead to the spread of democracy in the Middle East.
And nearly all – 91 per cent – said the war had worsened American relations with the Muslim world.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer dismissed the findings and accused the Lowy Institute of structuring the poll to get a particular result.
ABC in 2004 A new poll published today shows Australia's continued involvement in Iraq appears to be damaging the Howard Government and Labor would win a Federal election.
The AC Nielsen Poll published in today's Age and Sydney Morning Herald shows despite a positive reception for the Government's Budget, support for the Coalition has slipped to 39 per cent while the ALP has increased to 43 per cent.
After preferences Labor is 12 points in front at 56 to 44 per cent.
The poll also asked about support for the Iraq conflict.
Sixty-three per cent are against war, up 12 points since the question was asked eight months ago.
The Age in February 2003 Matilda comment: frames the responses in an interesting way but in Feb 2003 I don't think the Govt could say it had support no matter which way you frame the answers unless the UN supported the action.
SMH Jan 2003 Matilda comment: helps with the trend.
ABC in Sept 2003 ... 26 per cent of voters believe Mr Howard deliberately misled them about the reasons for going to war.
Mr Crean says it is also significant that 42 per cent of those polled believe Mr Howard unintentionally misled them about the war, because he was misled by others. Matilda comment: re AC Nielsen poll published in Fairfax newspapers
SMH 18 March 2003 another poll shows voters still strongly against a war in Iraq without UN support. Newspoll found support for a war against Iraq with UN support up from 56 per cent to 61 per cent.
Gallup International 2003 Matilda comment: 47% figure probably comes from - before the war
SMH Sep 2003 68 per cent of respondents believed Mr Howard had misled the Australian public about the reasons for going to war, and 51 per cent believed the war was not justified.
4 Corners (ABC) Iraq chronology in early MarchA poll finds that the level of Australian opposition to a US-led war on Iraq has grown to 59 per cent, its highest in six months. The poll also finds that 64 per cent of Australians would support a war with UN approval. Most significantly though as at March 26 The Sydney Morning Herald reports that according to Newspoll, 50 per cent of Australians now support Australia's involvement in the war, up from 25 per cent only two weeks ago. Opposition to the war has steadily waned, from a high of 73 per cent to 42 per cent. Matilda comment: I think this is my preferred source
What does anybody else think? --Matilda talk 02:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that the figures change over time. Once we'd invaded and found that the big thing about the WMD was that Saddam didn't actually have any left, but wanted people to think he might, then support dropped. Before we went in, it was still reasonably plausible and Saddam was a bastid anyway. Giving post-war polls while talking about the decision to invade skews the picture. --Pete (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I think if we are going to quote polls, the best would be to quote numbers from a reliable poll conducted immediately after the war started, and one after it was realised that there were no WMDs (or a current poll). Also, the poll question should be a broad 'do you support the war' not a question like 'do you think the war will reduce terrorism'. Did you ever find the name of the original poll quoted by the BBC? --Surturz (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The actual Newspoll is available for download from the newspoll.com.au site (sorry I can't work out how to link direct to the poll - search for 'Iraq' in 'Opinion Polls'). By my reading, total for involvement was 45% (not 50%), opposition to the war (without UN support) dropped from a high of 78% (not 73%) down to 47% (not 42%). However, the key number I feel is that, before the war, 57% 56% supported a war against Iraq if it was sanctioned by the UN. So there was not majority opposition to a war against Iraq at the time Howard went to war. So the real story is that before war was declared, there was broad support for the war, and once it was discovered there were no WMDs, then support for the war plummeted. I think this also shows how we need to be very careful citing newspapers/ABC when they recycle stats from other newspapers. I'm not sure WP policy on citing newspoll, I am not sure we are supposed to quote primary sources. --Surturz (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC) EDIT: fixed mistakes on my part --Surturz (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • outdent Quoting from polls and interpreting the data yourself would breach WP:NOR. Surturz queried the BBC as a reliable source and asks what poll were they quoting ... I have suggested above that a gallup poll seems likely since at least one of the figures corresponds with a gallup poll (see third last dot above) - I cannot google up other gallup poll figures and their archives don't seem that accessible. However this poll referred to before the war so I now don't think Gallup was necessarily what the BBC used - since I don't know what they used I cannot comment. However, the poll figures used by the BBC seem consistent with the 4 corners figures quoting the SMH in late March 2003 which used Newspoll - a recognised pollster. See my last dot point above. That source was quite clear - opposition to the war was at a high of 73%. 4 Corners hould be a reliable source - and so should the BBC.
I am finding the questioning of the sources to be just a little tendentious - there seems to be a number of sources agreeing that opposition was high - pick your source and stay away from original research. I believe 4 Corners would count as a reliable source by some standards - say for example Orderinchaos said on this talk page in relation to the ABC The ABC put a lot of things through their newswire that aren't verified to their usual standards. I catch errors there regularly, they're usually very responsive to email though when I contact them. If Lateline or 7:30 Report do a story on it, that's another matter - that would suggest it's been through the processes and checks. I would say 4 Corners fits into the latter category. --Matilda talk 05:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • For figures before the war - once again from the 4 Corners ref - at March 12 before the invasion A poll finds that the level of Australian opposition to a US-led war on Iraq has grown to 59 per cent, its highest in six months. The poll also finds that 64 per cent of Australians would support a war with UN approval. The invasion did not have UN approval. --Matilda talk 05:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Skyring's and Surturz's concerns that we must compare apples with apples are fair enough - ie, no point in juxtaposing the decision to go war with a recent poll, and we do indeed need to be clear whether we are talking about a UN-supported war and the actual non-UN supported war. However, I do believe that Matilda's post immediately above addresses these concerns well. I too think the reliability concerns are a bit of a stretch, but I'm happy that at least the result of the query has been extra vigilance. --Merbabu (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not trying to be tendentious, I am genuinely questioning the validity of the numbers. You seem keen to show that there was majority opposition to a war in Iraq before the invasion, and I am challenging that assertion. There may have been majority support to a war that was not sanctioned by the UN, but that is a completely different thing to saying that the majority of Australians were against a war in Iraq immediately prior to the invasion. I think I have demonstrated that the 4corners timeline reference should be corroborated by another source; 4corners is quoting SMH who quotes newspoll. It's Chinese Whispers - the original source does not match the final quotation. Can we at least find the SMH article quoted by the 4corners timeline? --Surturz (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I am saying the BBC is a reliable source, Surturz queried the poll figures. I have provided poll figures which are largely in line with the BBC figures. Anyway some SMH sources :
Url, publisher & date quote+ comment if any
26 March 2003 According to Newspoll, 50per cent of Australians now support Australia's involvement in the war, up from 25per cent only two weeks ago. Opposition to the war has steadily waned, from a high of 73per cent to 42per cent this week. Matilda comment:This compares though not identically with the BBC report A poll commissioned last week found that 47% of respondents were against military action compared to 70% the previous week.
1 April 2003 Support for the war in Iraq has grown substantially more than a week after the bombing began, but the largest proportion of Australians still oppose the conflict, a new poll has found.
A national Herald-ACNielsen survey conducted at the weekend found that 44 per cent of people now supported the war without United Nations backing.
However, the Prime Minister, John Howard, warned last night that the most difficult part of the campaign lay ahead.
"A street campaign in Baghdad could well be very costly, just how costly and precisely what might precede that I am not going to speculate," he said.
The 44 per cent of people surveyed who said they supported the war has climbed sharply from just 6 per cent in January. At the same time, opposition to the war without UN backing has almost halved from 92 per cent in January to 48 per cent this week.
Of those against the war, 27per cent said they were opposed because it did not have UN backing and 21 per cent said Australia should not be involved at all. .... etc
SMH in September Almost 70 per cent of Australians believe John Howard misled them on his case for war in Iraq, a new poll shows.
... the poll shows that most Australians did not believe the Government was justified in joining the war in Iraq. A third of the Coalition's voters counted themselves among those who did not believe the campaign to be justified.
Another April 1 SMH article Voters remain deeply uneasy about Australia's involvement in the war in Iraq.
The Herald-ACNielsen poll today shows that just a week since the United States-led invasion began, without a single Australian military casualty and with a surge of sympathy for the Australian troops fighting in it, more voters oppose Australia's participation than support it.
my bolding --Matilda talk 06:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
My bad, I was looking at the wrong column. --Surturz (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to confirm - this issue is now resolved - everyone is happy with the BBC ref and the figures it quotes? To my mind they seem to reconcile adequately with any other ref I have been able to pull and I have looked for polling references without prejudice - ie I was quite happy to find a poll to say that Australians were happy with the idea of invasion without UN endorsement - didn't find it. --Matilda talk 07:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) No, I'm still not happy because the nature of the 70% against the war is misrepresented (it wasn't against the war generally, it was against an unsanctioned war). I'd prefer the SMH references that actually name the poll used. I'd be happy if you mention that the opposition was to an unsanctioned war, which is what happened of course. I agree 70ish% people polled were against the action Howard instigated. But to give the impression that 70ish% were against invading Iraq at all is not correct. The actual case is that there was a substantial minority (25ish%) that wanted the UN to sanction the invasion. --Surturz (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Problem is we (Wikipedia editors) don't know what people in Australia think so for all we know the source could be right but really we are not going to make everyone happy on this issue. I've stayed out of this but I now feel that it can be added back in since it's now sourced. Bidgee (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to read people's minds, and I never removed the text inserted by Matilda (?) due to WP:NOR concerns (side note: I feel WP:NOR applies to the article text only, not the talk page). If we don't want to clutter the article with tedious definitions of UN-sanctioned vs non-UN-sanctioned war, I would be happy with %against figures for immediately prior and immediately after war started. The 92% down to 48% number quoted above, for example. --Surturz (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Haven't got time now - will fix it tomorrow and will mention that Howard was still popular personally as leader in Sep despite opposition using some of the sources above --Matilda talk 08:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not happy with quoting poll results that aren't linked to a known question or methodology, unless we include caveats to that effect. You can get any result you want on polls. --Pete (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Newspoll is quite reputable. I'm surprised SMH quoted it though, newspoll is The Australian's pollster of choice. --Surturz (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • outdent The suggestion that we don't quote polls is to me not sensible. The polls are being quoted by secondary sources and quite clearly say that there was not support for the war in the way the invasion was carried out. it is a significant point. It isn't just one poll that assert this - but multiple polls.
I think though that this SMH article from Sep 03 is interesting because people are still against the war but they are for the coalition government despite 51% still answering no to the question posed by AC Nielsen (reputable pollster) Thinking about the war in Iraq and its outcome, do you believe the war was justified? ... the polling found... Australia's involvement in the campaign has done little damage to Mr Howard's Government. ... Mr Howard leads Mr Crean as preferred prime minister 64 per cent to 24 per cent and the Coalition has increased its two-party preferred lead over Labor to 52-48.
I am happy to put that in - it just won't be today as I have domestic disasters on my hands somebody else can do it though :-) --Matilda talk 21:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 clarification about polling using Sydney Morning Herald articles as sources added to this article as per above discussion --Matilda talk 06:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

John Howard article - the future

If a controversial addition is made to an article, and I don't think it belongs there, based on wikipolicy, I'll restore to the status quo and it can be discussed properly. For an established article like John Howard, there is usually no urgent need to include new material, particularly if it relates to events years in the past. Take a day or so, find consensus, everyone is happy. I direct you to this edit by Docku, where he proposes adding new material and it is discussed. I also note WP:EDIT, saying, "All editors are encouraged to be bold, but there are several things that a user can do to ensure that major edits are performed smoothly. Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page." There also used to be (there may still be, but I can't find it) a guideline along the lines that you should try to write something that others will accept, even if they don't agree with you. Try to write for the other guy. I don't think you or I are going to leave the project, so we should try to get along with each other. I'm as sick of the John Howard article being a focus for conflict as you are. --Pete (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I for one question whether Lyn Allison really presented a paper to the ICC. I asked for confirmation on the Democrats' website and received no reply. Immediate reversion is the only way to show a lack of consensus. If controversial text is added, and people leave it there, then the inserters will make the case that 'it has been there for weeks, why are you removing it'? --Surturz (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't think Lyn Allison had much to do with it either. As for reverting, I don't think there's anything in the article that I really object to, though I'm sharing concerns about poll figures. In fact, i very rarely revert material on this article. Most stuff I either agree with or don't have enough disagreement to bother with. Just check the edit history. Most additions remain untouched by me. --Pete (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
"Jam-packed"? I can think of only two little things in there that I objected to strenuously, and consensus went against me. Wikipedia isn't my personal creation, it's not something I own, or even have a particularly big stake in, so if opinion goes the other way, I'm not going to mind. I wanted sunflowers in the communal garden, the other gardeners preferred petunias. Big deal. --Pete (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I and others provided copious amounts of evidence that the ICCAction stuff was the work of a single individual and that the ABC article was incorrect. It was ignored. Requests for additional references confirming that the ICCAction submission were ignored. --Surturz (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My unrequested commentary and suggested guidelines on what has been happening on some of the OZ pol articles. Editors *might* recognise themselves in here, and they will almost certainly recognise other editors!. I direct it at everyone but no-one in particular. (I hope that disclaimer rules out accusations of personal attacks – and in our new atmosphere of AGF I have nothing to worry about! :-) )

  1. There is nothing wrong with being bold – as long as we are *reasonable* (for example, is really neutral and notable? Is it really not just pushing your barrow under the guise of “balance”).
  2. There is nothing wrong with reverting – again, as long as we are reasonable (for example, is it really a BLP issue? Or, can you improve it instead?).
  3. From that point, it becomes a matter of discussion for the talk page - not edit war. Then we get to that old chest nut: “consensus” (lol). Keep it civil to maintain an atmosphere that is actually conducisve to consensus, not one conducisve to trench warfare and stalemate. Intentionally scuppering consensus with incivilty should be a banning offence in future (but that’s just IMO). Look for the 3rd, 4th way etc. Compromise is not a dirty word.
  4. Being civil and nice with a smile (and quoting of basic policy pages with which you know we are all familiar) is no excuse for incessant breaches of point 1 above. This should also be a banning offence in future, but that again is my opinion, and unfortunately is very hard to raise this issue.
  5. Consensus does not mean 1 person vetos everyone else. Use some common sense (and review point 3).

Just some thoughts. Kind regards and happy editing. --Merbabu (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. But for it to be true, all editors need to show more respect for points 1 and 4. We can't get around that. It's pointless saying which needs to come first - we just need to make the chicken and egg appear together. --Merbabu (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Like the disclaimer by Merbabu, it is really general and not aimed at anyone. I agree that any unreferenced material has to be immediately removed by anyone who sees it first. But any other relevant information if it follows the three following wikipedia policies WP:Verifiability, WP:RS and WP:NOR do not require to be removed as urgently. If someone can not establish themselves whether the information follows these requirements, they just leave it for someone else to take care of it. (After all, there are enough editors who are following this page).
When such an information is added which follows the abovementioned policies (I hope this can stay for a short time atleast a day, just a random number) and if some of the editors are not happy with that because they believe it violates other wp policies including WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN, WP:REDFLAG or any other policies, they just need to start a discussion and convince the others why they think that it should be removed because it violates the above policies. (One more way is to ask the editor who added it and ask for an explanation or remove it himself. Giving some reasonable amount of time is acceptable atleast until the editor makes another edit elsewhere. After all, the burden of evidence lies with the person who adds it) If it is really a clear violation of any of these policies, convincing would be easy and thus the edit will then be removed immediately. If there are strong support on both sides (inclusion and exclusion), it more than likely means that the violation is borderline and IMO could be reworded to make sure that it adheres to wp policies. Well, of course, the information can totally be abandoned if no rewording can make it possible to achieve the requirements.
I want to make it clear here that I am not starting another discussion here for inclusion of war crime allegation though similar information is still staying in Tony Blair article, I am just presenting alternative way of thinking which existed and still exists. Well, In this particular case, In stead of having added this information AttemptedIn June 2008 a legal brief was sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging Howard committed a war crime while Prime Minister by sending troops to Iraq. A similar brief was also submitted by a UK based group against Tony Blair. The Australian brief was prepared by an alliance of peace activists, lawyers, academics and politicians, including the leader of the Australian Democrats, Lyn Allison.[70] we could have also added the concern by Surturz. Alternative:In June 2008 a legal brief was sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging Howard committed a war crime while Prime Minister by sending troops to Iraq. A similar brief was also submitted by a UK based group against Tony Blair. The Australian brief was prepared by an alliance of peace activists, lawyers, academics and politicians, including the leader of the Australian Democrats, Lyn Allison. However, there are copious amounts of evidence that the ICCAction stuff was the work of a single individual and that the ABC article was incorrect or add additional information and tweak it anyother way to have achieved fair presentation.
What happens when something like this gets added? Well, it is really a compromise so all editors feel like their opinions and concerns have been listend to. Second, we are absolutley not misleading the readers because we are provinding all the information. Third, after sometime passes by, the information will either get strenghthened or weakened by additional associated instances, therefore will stay if strengthened or will be thrown out if weakened as a trivia and even the ones who supported the inclusion may not object to it anymore.
It is my simple humble opinion. It may have flaws and I assume responsibility for it and will not hesitate to apologise if mistakes are found. Like I mentioned, I remind all again that I am not starting a discussion thread for the inclusion for war crimes, it was just an alternate way of thinking which can be ignored by anyone who reads it. It can also be considered as a general information related to future editorial process in the article. I also must note that I have repeated some of the points made by others albeit with different words. Atleast, we agree on some issues on a positive note. DockuHi 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama comments

I'm thinking we should put the Obama comments rv war into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars#Politics. Thoughts? --Surturz (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, was it the war that was lame or one particular “side’s” position? The other “side” was only doing their wiki duty – hardly lame.  ;-) Hey, I heard that just yesterday Howard got grumpy at a guy serving him coffee in a café. It’s reliably referenced. Who am I to say this guy isn’t notable. Let’s put it in! OK, so of course I just made that up, but the Obama proposal was lame. --Merbabu (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

ICC Action

Sorry to resurrect this dead horse, but I think it only fair to let everyone know that I finally got a reply from the Democrats confirming that Lyn Allison *did* support the ICC Action submission. --Surturz (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, negative information not allowed here. Just kidding. :) DockuHi 16:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Original research confirms what the secondary sources said. So the ABC was accurate all along.--Lester 23:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
No. The point on which the ABC was demonstrably wrong was in the timing of the submission. The ICCAction Group's own website gives a date of submission later than the ABC story. I think I've pointed it out several times already, but it's worth doing so again:
  • the story was wrong, in which case it's not a reliable source, or
  • the submission had been made twice previously and rejected by the ICC both times, in which case it's not a story.
Do we have a reliable source stating that the submission has been made and accepted by the ICC? No. --Pete (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Skyring(Pete), I previously posted 14 online references (now archived), including a reference from every single major news organisation in Australia. Are you still arguing on the grounds that the submission was never made, or that your own original research proves every major news organisation to be wrong?--Lester 00:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Original research not required. The ICC Action Group's own website says: We wish to advise the 62 page ‘Brief of Evidence’ document to the ICC Chief Prosecutor, which we feel builds the prima facie case ‘alleging’ that John Winston Howard has committed war crimes; was sent to The Hague 14 June 2008. On 15 August 2008, the ICC advises the Brief Of Evidence: Case 425/07 to be ‘now under analysis’. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the site says that submission was made on 14 June and all the media reports are prior to that date, then a story saying that the submission was made have got to be in error. Of course, using the ICC Action Group website as a reliable source is really going out on a limb. We could find all manner of fruit and nuts on that limb. --Pete (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The inconsistency in date could just be a typo, who knows. Well, the fact that lyn Allison did support the submission confirms the story was not wrong. The event is notable even if ICC rejects the application. The issue is simple: include or exclude... DockuHi 01:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Probably about the difference you'd expect from when it is placed in the post, to when the document arrives in The Hague. Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources (ie, news reports) rather than primary sources, which is original research. From what I can gather, Skyring(Pete) is the only editor who is arguing that the submission didn't take place (others debated the notability of the content, which is a separate matter). If we're going to argue that every single major news organisation is wrong, then we could rip out most of the Australian content from Wikipedia.--Lester 01:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is saying the submission didn't take place. Where did you get that idea? And no, it's not any sort of postal delay. The ICC Action Group says the submission took place on 14 June, which is well after any media stories about the event. The IAG gave a still later date for their report that it had been received by the ICC, and now they give an August date for its acceptance for analysis as "425/07". On this precise point, the media stories are clearly wrong, when they say it was submitted on 2 June. I've pointed this out several times previously here, raised a WP:BLP notification and based a RfC on it, but you must not have read my contributions, despite responding to them. --Pete (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) "The event is notable even if ICC rejects the application". Disagree strongly with this. It is only notable if it is accepted. It is probably notable on Lyn Allison's page, though. --Surturz (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting how we disagree with each other. DockuHi 12:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Very unusual situation, Skyring(Pete). You agree with the basic fact (previously added to the article) that the document was submitted to the ICC, and you agree that the document was submitted in the month of August. However, you disagree with information that was not in the article, about the day of the month the document was submitted. You use this disputed point about the day of the month, to say that every media organisation in Australia is an unreliable source to use as a reference for the basic information that you agree was factual. Did I get that wrong? --Lester 04:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. You need a source to say it was submitted. The only sources supplied predate the submission. Speculation has no place in Wikipedia. Not that the submission is worth including in the article anyway. --Pete (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Publications

  • Wilkinson, Peter (2007) The Howard Legacy - displacement of traditional Australia from the professional and managerial classes. Digital Print Australia. ISBN 9780980400809

Desertpea (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC) I incorrectly put the name of the printer and distributor in as the publisher. The entry should read

  • Wilkinson, Peter (2007) The Howard Legacy - displacement of traditional Australia from the professional and managerial classes. Independent Australian Publications. ISBN 9780980400809.

This book is available in major Australian universities and State libraries. It contains hitherto unpublished statistics extracted from the Department of Education, Science and Training database. The Howard Legacy deals with an important part of the immigration and education policies under Howard, rarely commented on elsewhere. I understand that editing of the John Howard entry is the control of editors. I recommend to them that this book be placed on the the Publications list.Desertpea (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Desertpea. Well, the Howard article isn't supposed to be a privately owned article to be only edited by existing editors. It's unfortunate that some have given you the impression that only they are allowed to add content here. This is supposed to be the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, including you. However, you must provide a reference for every point you add. You can use the Wikipedia:Citation templates to format your reference. Add the reference at the end of the sentence or paragraph. Happy editing. --Lester 03:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Howard/Archive_16&oldid=1136849796"