Jump to content

Talk:John Howard/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

man of steel

Should it be noted that George w bushs nickname of howard is the 'man of steel' ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.49.208.141 (talk • contribs) .

Where would you suggest it be added? Ben Aveling 07:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Not sure. But surely its worthy of inclusion. Howard and bush are somewhat good friends. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Portillo (talk • contribs) .

Maybe at Man of Steel? Andjam 11:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Seeing what J Howard has done to Australia and many in the community the nickname of 'man of steel' is not surely worthy of inclusion and should never ever be.

Why not? 'Man of steel' is pretty much what 'stalin' translates to. Which I think is interesting enough. Of course if it can be referenced.—Dananimal 04:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
That if anything is POV and irrelevant. Out of context with the quote Xtra 04:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Ehh? If this is varifiable I think it is quirky and interesting if a little funny—Dananimal

but it's george bush's point of view. Add a trivia section and in the trivia section type "George W. Bush the 82091274 president of the United States has reffered to Howard as 'man of steel' and his 'deputy' on several occasions when Howard has visited Washington" or some shit like that

Length of article

This article is too long. I am certainly no John Howard lover I admit but even so it is simply too detailed, particularly with regards to recent events. Any suggestions/comments?Dankru 10:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the length of the article is fine considering the length of time that John Howard has been PM and the amount of changes that have been seen during his tenure Tmothyh 04:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The sections on each new government term are huge and best served in separate articles.Dankru 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Would this not detract from the article as it would not discuss John Howard's time as PM? Tmothyh
My point is that the article is less about him and more about the politics around him. Obviously it is hard to divorce the two, and each Howard ministry is important. However, they would be best served with even more detail in separate articles.Dankru 13:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
IS there a Wiki standard ie with previous Pms from Australia and from overseas. What about the terms of Presidents is there a 2 pages one for each term of a 2 two term president? Tmothyh 04:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Marr & Kingston

Describing Marr, in particular as a "left-wing" columunist is POV. It is a matter of opinion as to where he falls on the political spectrum. If you want to use such a label you must supply a fully reasoned argument with evidence.

It is totally unneccessary to pidgeon-people a respected author such as this such a label as "left-wing". Perhaps Marr has views generally held by members of the left but perhaps many of his views are held by a much greater spectrum of the public. Arbitary labelling of people such as this is totally unneccessary and pejorative. It is an attempt to indicate that the author is some way biased or unfair which in no way has been demonstrated by any facts. He is of course the noted biographer of Patrick White and generally highly regarded as a professional writer and academic.

David Marr was born in Sydney in 1947. He was educated at the Sydney Church of England Grammar School and the University of Sydney, where he graduated in Arts and Law. He had been an articled clerk with the legal firm Allen, Allen and Hemsley, but he soon turned to journalism and wrote for the Bulletin and the National Times. He was editor of the National Times in 1981-82. He was later editor of the ABC program 'Four Corners' (1985, 1990-91) and the presenter of Radio National's 'Arts today' program (1994-96). He is currently a feature writer for the Sydney Morning Herald. - http://www.middlemiss.org/lit/authors/marrd.html

--Wm 08:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, describing Kingston as "left-wing" is just an attempt to indicate some level of bias, without putting forward any facts. Kingston voted for Howard when he won his first term so the term left-wing is a misleading simplification of a complex political view point. Deal in facts, not pejorative labelling. --Wm 08:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

marr and kingston are left wing. there is not much doubt about it. with your logic - labeling anyone with a political stance would amount to POV and that is simply not the case. Xtra 08:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could you please explain exactly why you feel it is important to label these authors as "left wing". Please explain what you mean by "left wing". Please explain exactly what beliefs held by these two individuals do you regard as indicating that they are left wing. Malcolm Fraser a member of the same political party as John Howard has been critical of Howard. Do you also regard him as "left wing"? Does Marr belong to any political party? Instead of labeling Marr as a "left wing columnist) - why not label him as a "noted biographer and journalist"? On what basis is it more important to label him "left wing"? Please provide an example of where a similar reference has been annotated in such a fashion. --Wm 09:34, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of left wing editors making sure that supposedly right wing people are labelled as such but if you to the same to a left wing person god help you for your terrible crime. i mean seriously, this is rediculous! Xtra 08:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have never applied such a "right wing" label to any reference. How is it that you infer that I have? This is a false claim. Please retract it.--Wm 09:34, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Alright, let's try to be constructive here. Xtra, the position of labelling Marr & Wilkinson as "left-wing" is exactly the same as calling Albrechtsen et. al "right wing" on David Marr (journalist). There you rejected it on the basis that more full descriptions can be given on the articles - I tend to agree, and on that basis support the removal of those descriptors both from the Howard and Marr articles.
I ended up not bothering with that anymore as i was reverted a few times and subsequently was trying to get uniformity here. Xtra 09:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It would also be helpful if we had an article on Dark Victory. As a general principle, it's usually not necessary to mark a source as critical or supportive within reasonable boundaries. A pithy summary of the content of Dark Victory would be better than trying to ascertain the political position of its authors.
As an aside, I don't think it would be particularly helpful to describe Howard as "right-wing" within this article - you could fairly say he's conservative, because he self-identifies and there's a firm consensus, and it's a useful descriptive label. The same arguments apply in describing him as a supporter of monetarist economics. Assigning anybody to a political "wing" as a way of attributing actions to motivations is going to be much less helpful. Slac speak up! 08:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am in favour removing the descriptor "left-wing" from Marr and Kingston. The fact that they are listed under "anti-Howard sources" is sufficient. More important is that all our external links are anti-Howard. Someone should try and come up with some pro-Howard sources. Adam 08:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the external links aren't - pm.gov.au and the NAA page. But we could definitely do with a positive biography in the "sources". I assume there's one around somewhere. Slac speak up! 08:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am referring to the Further reading section - all of which are identified as "criticisms of Howard." It has never occurred to anyone to have a "Praise of Howard" section. This is of course because almost all Wikpedians (including me) are anti-Howard. But we have to try to overcome our biasses when editing these articles. I think by the way that the "Manildra" group of references should be deleted. This was a fairly minor matter and I don't see why it merits a category of its own. Adam 08:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I got rid of the Manildra stuff. I think there's going to be quite a few howard books, because, unlike America, the pro-govt book publishing industry hasn't quite geared up to the anti-govt book publishing industry. We could probably pare down the list of critical books a little bit while also adding a Howard Hagiography or two. Assuming they exist: if not, I'll get on to David Flint to write one. Slac speak up! 09:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The books are chronicles of the Howard years and are extremely relevant to anyone studying the period. It is only reasonable to include references to such material to provide the reader with further material on the subject. The Manildra material was placed there to support the text. --Wm 09:34, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have restored the Manildra references, as mentioned they support the text. See Wikipedia policy Cite your Sources "If you consult an external source while writing an article, citing it is basic intellectual honesty. More than that, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite." --Wm 09:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please note the Wikipedia article Left-wing politics: ... "terms that refer (with no particular precision) to the segment of the political spectrum" - Note the phrase "with no particular precision". That is, the term is an arbitary one, it does not convey any facts to the reader and should be removed. --Wm 09:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Please note style guide for citations: Wikipedia:Cite_sources#An_example_citation_style --Wm 10:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see. So it is ok to lable Andrew Bolt and Janet Albrechtsen as conservative and right wing, but it is not ok to do the same for left wing people. Ok I see your point. How terrible of me not to realise that before... As I said. I want uniformity. You can't have it both ways. Xtra 01:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

if you want uniformity then delete the "right-wing" descriptors from Bolt etc. Adam 02:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i did, but it was re-inserted (from memory). Xtra 02:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Xtra please try and answer the points raised above. If you want citations to have this format why not modify the citations guidlines refered to above? Surely you must realise that it is simply not normal to attempt to pidgeon hole people with such arbitary labels in a citation. There is a link to to fuller description of the person right there in the citation. Another question for you: Do you think it appropriate to modify the Gerard Henderson citation in the Liberal Party article in a similar fashion? Do you think Henderson has a broader career than columnist? Marr also is much more than a columnist, your description of him as a "left-wing" columnist is imprecise and fairly meaningless and also misleading amd inneccesarily limited. Pleaes note that I find the tone of your message on my personal page extremely aggresive and unhelpful and the accusations about me labeling people as right wing are completely unfounded. --Wm 12:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh. Xtra, please watch your own biases. There is no other article on Wikipedia (particularly on a political figure) that attaches notes to sources as to whether they are left or right wing. It seems that, as on David Marr, you're keen to remove any mention of right-wing from columnists such as Bolt and Albrechtsen, and at the same time, add it to much less clear cases such as Marr. I have no problem with the allegations of his being left-wing being noted in Marr's article, but I most certainly have a problem with the labelling of citations here in this way. Ambi 14:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Didn't you hear? Xtra is always right, and his way is the only correct way. Conservatives have free reign, yet no one better label them as such or else he'll call you lefty, hide behind the bible, and rob from the rich to save himself. It is afterall the way of the Liberal Party. Enjoy.
Dingbat, some of us are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Piss off back to your local student council if you want to trade insults. Slac speak up! 10:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read ALL of the arguments here, but I think we should work to describe the ideas of Marr, rather than just label him as a left-wing journalist. Why is he left-wing? Highlight his ideas and preferred policies, rather than sticking on names. --coblin 11:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Costello

"With the Deputy Liberal leader Peter Costello unwilling to step up to the leadership, the Liberals, having no-one else to turn to, recalled Howard, who became leader for the second time."

That is not how I remember it. The way I remember it is that Costello was talked out of standing for the leadership when Downer resigned. Downer being an experiment had failed and the party did not want to go through another experiment in the form of Costello and therefore chose the experienced Howard.--The Shadow Treasurer 29 June 2005 00:36 (UTC)

My memory is that Costello felt he was too young (38) and inexperienced (five years in the House) to take on Keating - a sound judgement IMHO. Adam 29 June 2005 01:15 (UTC)

Australian Anglicans

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

He has described himself as an Anglican several times to my recollection. There is a long-established tendency for upwardly-mobile non-conformists to become Anglicans. (Asquith comes to mind). Adam 11:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"A few concluding observations: I don't believe Howard is first and foremost a politician whose personal religion is equivocal but who uses religion to further his conservative political aims. He is more subtle than that. One could equally argue that the young Howard who harangued girls at the Methodist church dances over the virtues of 'monarchy and empire' is still there. He's still the same practising Anglican who regularly turns up at the North Sydney Anglican church on a Sunday sitting in a back row with his minders. He has said that he would worship in any church." [1] Adam 11:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam

Yes, it is a material fact that Howard did not serve in Vietnam. A great many Australian men of his age, regardless of their attitudes to the war, did not. Would an article on a 22-year old greengrocer who supports the current war on Iraq be expected to read "he chose not to serve in Vietnam, instead focusing on furthering himself in his greengrocer career"? Given that we drift perilously close to counterfactual reasoning when we talk about his non-attendance, what relevance can be established for putting the claim in the article? If the sole relevance of his non-service is an inference of inconsistency with his later support for the war, then it should (a) be mentioned in the relevant section, ie. discussion of his political views, and (b) be *attributed* - to my knowledge, nobody has raised this as a political issue. Currently, the article simply asks readers to make inferences and suppositions. Slac speak up! 03:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Lets not bicker but reach agreement?I agree with you it may not be suitable for entry in his initial biog-but I cant find where else to place it. Any ideas? Does it not surprise you that his 'contradictions' has not been made an a political issue. Calwell objected to consription and campaigned against it, calling a 'vote for Menzies was a blood vote' recalling his own youth from WW1. Whilst Howard as usual had it both ways. Eric

You are imputing motive, which is not what we are about at wikipedia. Please stick to FACTS. Xtra 03:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well I think the problem here is that Calwell chose to make his history of antagonism to conscription a central part of his campaign during Vietnam, while nobody (to my knowledge) has chosen to accuse Howard of cowardice or shirking his duty (cf. Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who was criticised for not serving in WWII, and thus this could be mentioned in article about him). As far as relevant sections go, I don't know. Possibly in some part dealing with the Iraq war. A citation from somebody would go a long way towards easing my disquiet with the statement. I'm sure Howard personally would argue that there was nothing at all inconsistent in supporting conscription but not serving himself since he was never conscripted. In any case, as has been stated, it's not for us to infer that there was. Slac speak up! 04:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Let the facts speak for themselves. Im trying not to infer anything. 'Contradictions' in people lives are what make them human. In the 60s tens of thousands of young mens lives and careers were disrupted either by facing up to war service or avoiding it on moral grounds-it wasn't like choosing between PCs and Macs as a lifestyle choice-this was serious stuff. JH chose not to put his body where his mouth was. Eric

Would it be possible for someone to mediate this? You cant ignore an important salient fact just because it doesnt fit the myth. Eric

How is inserting a random "fact" such as this then relevant. It is either POV or irrelevant factoid and either way what you have inserted and re-inserted is not appropriate. Xtra 05:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It might be relevant to note that Howard was already 25 when the first commitment was made to Vietnam, and was thus above conscription age. Of course he could have volunteered, but Vietnam was not like the two world wars when all able-bodied mane were expected to enlist. Secondly he has always worn glasses and suffered from deafness, and thus would probably not have passed the physical (as happened to both Evatt and Calwell, by the way). Adam 05:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

  • That he was possibly unfit for service in a front line unit is besides the point. He was of military age. He could have volunteered - even Billy McMahon did that in WW2. With his connections Howard could have wangled a job in a support unit - the Advocate General's Dept or the Pay Corps are two units which come to mind. But he did not. Not even the CMF (Army Reserve) Albatross2147 06:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The list of things a person has not done is practically infinite, and not particularly notable. Also, can a citation be made that Howard was in favour of the Vietnam warAndjam 10:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

    • This is a well known fact on the public record. There have been numerous newspaper and magazine articles with comments to to this effect. It is in Hansard. There is a photo taken by a Fairfax photographer (still occasionally republished) showing a short haired John Howard arguing with some anti War demonstrators (in Martin Place I think). He was a member of the State Executive of Liberal Party (NSW) from 1963 (to 1974) and in addition State Representative, Young Liberals (NSW) 1962-64 (including for a period he was the NSW president). He was at the very heart of Liberal Party power at the time. In 1963 he was Tom Hughes's campaign manager, he was in the "Carrick faction". Had he been in any way opposed or even lukewarm on either policy it would have been a sensation and well documented. It should be noted that tellingly no mention of "National Service", "Conscription" or "Vietnam" (or for that matter "Robert Askin") is made in Barnett's panygeric. Albatross2147 06:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • So an abscence of statements saying that Howard was against conscription is good enough evidence for you? A "well known fact" but you can't be bothered getting a citation? Andjam 10:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

At least to me, it apears to be an attempt at POV to say that he wanted to send others but didnt want to go himself. Something like this needs a citation soon or should be removed. Xtra 10:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That Howard was in favour of the Vietnam War and conscription for it does not need to be documented. He was an active member of the Liberal Party at the time and therefore may be assumed to have supported his party's policies. If he had ever said anything to the contrary it would be well documented. Since he was of military age (though too old to be conscripted) it is therefore also true that he chose not to enlist or attempt to do so. The fact that he was in favour of conscripting others while choosing to stay at home himself is therefore a legitimate observation. Adam 11:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a bit unfair. Xtra 12:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
If it's noteworthy and true that he supported the war and conscription, then it should be possible to find a reliable NPOV source noting that he supported the war and conscription. Andjam 12:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Xtra: why is it unfair? I think about 200 conscripts were killed in Vietnam. That someone who was eligible to serve as a volunteer did not do so, while supporting sending others to their deaths, seems to me to raise a serious moral issue. I would not myself have included it in this article, but if others choose to do so I don't see how it can be objected to.
  • Andjam: I dare say diligent research could find a contemporary reference. But I maintain my view that we are entitled to assume that someone who was an active member of the Liberal Party (and, as I understand it, of the right-wing faction of the NSW Liberals), was in favour of his own party's policies, unless there is evidence to the contrary. It was after all the dominant issue of the day. Adam 12:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
If you can't verify that Howard supported the war and conscription, then how about changing the text to something that can be verified, ie that Howard was member of party X which supported policy Y. Otherwise it becomes original research. Andjam 12:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
If there's anything on the record, a quick google didn't find it. The closest things I found were these:
  • "Prime Minister John Howard has observed, the method of conscription – a random process based on birthdays – was a mistake." [2]
  • "Menzies had reintroduced national service for all eligible 20-year-olds in 1964" In 1966 PM Holt announced "the current infantry battalion in Vietnam will be replaced by a self-contained Australian task force [including] two army battalions, each of which will contain a proportion of national servicemen, as will all future substantial Australian Army units deployed overseas in any theatre. The national service intake will continue at 8400 a year." "John Howard, of course, was nowhere to be seen. He was a solicitor in a small Sydney firm and still eight years away from coming into Parliament" [3]
In short, unless we can find something more, I don't see anything significant to say. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Ka-Ching! "Vietnam was a Cold War conflict with two states, each backed by super powers, competing for territory and where large conscripted forces were necessary for major land battles and frequent armed confrontations." [4] Regards, Ben Aveling 07:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Conscription of whom? The context suggests conscription of North and South Vietnamese. And what is meant by necessary? That it's necessary for the major land battles, but no mention of whether the major land battles were necessary - by your interpretation, Howard is not only in favour of the anti-communist forces but also of conscription of the pro-communist forces. Andjam 08:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
By whichever side wanted to win. That is, if we were going to win, we had to use conscription. If they were going to win, they had to use conscription. Let me pull in some more of what he said:
"Two points are certain though. First, this [Afghanistan] is a war that will be fought by highly trained, highly professional combat forces using the most modern intelligence and weapons systems. For that reason, I can definitely rule out the introduction of conscription. Although National Servicemen have served our country with great distinction in the past, the Government believes that in the present strategic circumstances, national service is neither necessary nor appropriate."
"The war will be a new kind of war. There will be few, if any, set-piece battles to bring it to an end. Rather it will be a sustained effort, requiring sturdy patience, and the careful marshalling and coordination of resources. There can be no valid comparison with Vietnam, for example, or other wars of the past. Vietnam was a Cold War conflict with two states, each backed by super powers, competing for territory and where large conscripted forces were necessary for major land battles and frequent armed confrontations. In contrast, today all the major powers of the world are as one in their opposition to international terrorism."
However you look at it, he is in favour of conscripting people to fight in a war he didn't choose to fight in himself. That's not necessarily a hypocritical position - if his number came up, I assume he would have gone. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
A 2001 speech ruling out modern-day conscription being used in support of claiming he supported conscription in Vietnam seems a little weak. Would you expect a current PM (as opposed to a leader of the opposition or former PM) to denounce previous military history? Andjam 08:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Also at J. Howard 'Menzies minus the myths' Weekend Australian 12-13 November 1994 Books Section, p. 5. he states "...Menzies and his colleagues (and often large sections of the Labor Party) believed it to be in Australia's interests to act in concert with those powerful friends - and that in most cases, that judgement was right." quoted at http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/interventions/leftvietnam.htm

Do we need to put the citations in the article? Albatross2147 07:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not inline, but if someone's going to be relying on Marxists, readers should know about it. Andjam 08:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if they are Marxists or not but they are quoting a book review written by Howard. Albatross2147 08:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Of all the silly arguments I have seen at Wikipedia, this would have to be one of silliest. Does anyone have a shred of evidence that Howard did not support his own party's policies over Vietnam? He has been a consistent and orthodox Liberal all his life - unlike some other people, he has always had the courage of his convictions. I'm sure if he was asked today he would say "Yes I supported the Vietnam War and conscription for it, and when I look at the history of Indochina under communism since 1975 I make no apologies for having done so." As someone who opposed the war at the time, I think that is a very defensible position. I can't understand why people now want to create some doubt about Howard's views at the time. If they have a skerrick of evidence to back up this doubt, they should produce it. Otherwise they should shut up. Adam 10:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the superlative. Considering the non-neutral language first used when the factoid was introduced, I think I have a good idea whom the onus of proof is on (also see verifiability). Andjam 11:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Look we have plenty of circumstantial evidence so far - each a small crumb admittedly but so far all to pointing the fact that Howard was an important supporter of the two policies but just like Menzies he did not offer to do active service himself. As with Menzies it's a fact that people should be aware of and draw their own conclusions. Albatross2147 13:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Are crumbs of evidence good enough for you? Andjam 04:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You could make sandwiches out of some of those crumbs. The question for me is not did he support conscription in private, or even does he support conscription. I'm convinced that he does and did. But what of it? He didn't made any major contribution to the debate that I could find easily, nor has he ever changed the settings, nor has he sent conscripts to war, nor was he in much of a position to do any of those things at the time in question.
  • "Howard supported National Service which was reintroduced in 1964, and supported Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] Too old, at 25, to be eligible for conscription Howard did not join either the permanent military or reserve forces during this period."
The problem I have with this sentance is that it implies that Howard supported conscription and the war in public, which does not seem to be the case. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a really dumb discussion. The question that isn't being asked is, does it matter? Do we need Howard's opinion and stance on every issue which occurred a decade before he entered public life? It has never been an issue whether he served/didn't serve, or whether he didn't fight, so I don't see how it is notable. Maybe he supported the war (It's most likely), but why does it matter? All things considered, however, I think you've got to have solid facts on your side if you're going to make a claim about someone's political stance on a 40-year-old issue. Otherwise, stay silent on the issue. Braue 12:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

He was in "public life" before he entered Federal parliament. He stood for and lost the state seat of Drummoyne quite apart from the official positions he held in the NSW Liberal Party orgamisation Albatross2147 13:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Drummoyne

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

"Honest John"

The following paragraph is included here due to differing views about whether it constitutes "comentary" as is asserted by Adam Carr, or not. In my view the paragraph goes to an area of controversy related to Howard. The nickname "Honest John" has been often repeated and can be found in numerous sources such as Hansard and throughout the media. I would appreciate views on whether the parargaph should be re-introduced to the article in its current form or in some amended state. Cheers!

Throughout his parliamentary career, John Howard has often been referred to by the nickname "honest John". While the origins of the nickname are unknown, some claim that it was first given in honour after he opposed the attempts by some prominent Liberals to promote dodgy Bottom of the Harbour tax evasion schemes. The moniker was in any event adopted by Howard's political opponents and some in the press in an ironic sense. The first example of this appears to be in response to Howard's actions when as treasurer in 1978 he delivered the budget that reneged on the liberal party's "fistful of dollars" promised by the Fraser government in the 1977 election. Howard's honesty has often been attacked by political opponents, such as during the 2004 election campaign where an internet site "www.johnhowardlies.com" (now defunct) was used.

Hmette 08:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

White it is often repeated that Howard has or used to have the nickname "Honest John," I don't think this is true. I have been following Australian politics closely since before Howard was in Parliament, and I don't recall this name ever being used except sarcastically by Labor and left-wing critics of Howard. It is therefore not a genuine nickname, just a term of abuse such as "Tricky Dicky" for Nixon. In particular I don't think the name has any connection with the events of 1977 - 1978. I am willing to be proved wrong about this, but only by actual empirical research (ie, some contemporary references) and not by mere assertion. Furthermore, the use of words like "dodgy" and "moniker" is unencyclopaedic. Adam 10:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Should we now devote an entire paragraph to the newest derision, "King John"? I think not.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

dunno how many pubs Adam Carr frequents, but you don't have to go far to hear the ironical "honest john" appelation. what sort of evidence would suit adam? Mccready 13:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

If you frequented fewer pubs your reading skills might improve. Read what I said again. You will see that I asked for evidence of the non-ironic use of "Honest John." Adam 23:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any problem with removing reference to the non-ironic use unless evidence can be found, but that shouldn't stop the inclusion of the reverence to the ironic use. I'm sure we can dig up some Hansard references for that including the budget reply in 1978. Hmette 04:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I just did a full text search on Hansard online and found that the first occurrence of "Honest John" occurred in october 1983 ([5]), spoken in the ironic sense by an ALP member. The online records go back to 1981. I don't know if they're complete back then, but assuming that they are, there's a few interesting things to be observed: First, there's nothing before that 1983 reference, i.e. nothing from 1981 to oct 1983. Then, there are no further references to "Honest John" until 12 sep 1985; thereafter they come thick and fast, all in the ironic sense, all coming from the ALP. A brief quote from the first one in 1985:
Following his victory in last week's leadership battle I was sickened to read in some newspapers that the new Leader of the Opposition has been christened Honest John. Unfortunately, Honest John made quite a few honest mistakes during his stewardship as our country's Treasurer. (Graham Campbell, ALP member for kalgoorlie).
I'm living in the US right now so it's a bit hard to track down those newspapers from 1985. If anyone felt like it, there might be some useful clues to track down there. Maybe some microfilms in the local library would do it.
It appears at first sight that all this is evidence for the position that "honest john" was always meant to be sarcastic. But I don't know if this really stands up. After all, Hansard only records what goes on in parliament, and it's quite possible that the phrase "Honest John" was used earlier, but didn't make it to parliament until the ALP found it rhetorically useful. My best guess (without hard evidence) is that it was always meant sarcastically. I mean, it just doesn't fit my experience of the way aussies use the english language for them to say "Honest John" and actually mean it literally.
Some of the stories being discussed on this page are also mentioned at [6], which incidentally mentions someone else performing the same Hansard search as I did, with the same results.
For the record, I'm no fan of Honest John; and also I'm a bit too young to know anything about the political landscape in the 80s and earlier. I would be fascinated to hear if anyone could resolve this question in a more final manner. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 00:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Should we really devote any space at all to a nickname? It is unenecylopedic and does not add much to the article except that some people have called him 'Honest John'. Besides which it is borderline defamation and in the free edit environment of Wikipedia lends itself too much to the common evil of bashing public figures in a public forum.Razol2 13:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I can remember the term "Honest John" used for Mr Howard years ago, I think that over the past several years it has fallen out of use - I assume as the left-wingers think it's beyond a joke to use the term sarcastically, and the right-wingers know that John Howard's honesty no longer stands up to close examination. My own feeling is that Mr Howard now feels that he can use media manipulation (for example the $55 million currently spent on promoting the Liberal Party's agenda of unfair workplace laws) rather than by actually being honest and upfront. One only has to look at the GST (that would be "never ever" introduced), the "Children Overboard", and the WMD issues raised previously to see that Mr Howard's words hold little truth. Please don't refer to Mr Howard as "Honest John" - whilst this has been a sometime nickname he certainly hasn't been honest. History will look back at John Howard and see him as a somewhat astute politician, albeit as someone who took Australia backwards as a nation and ruined the happiness of many of our country's population. Australia's children will want to spit on him in the years to come, not shake his hand. RevJohn 14:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Winston

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

I think the Barnett-Goward biography says so: presumably he is the source. Since his parents are dead we will have to take his word for it. Adam 08:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder about the criteria for adding external links to this page is? Why is the John Hewson article linked, but not a Fraser or Hawke one? Why is the ALP website linked, but not the Australian Democrats or Greens? I think only the top three links are non-POV. Are only political links allowed, or are popular culture sites also allowed? Consistency people, consistency! :)

I think many of these links are not appropriate for the page or Wiki. Some also don't work and dont fit into non -POV Tmothyh

ALP

The article makes use of the acronym "ALP" (Australian Labor Party) in two places.

I think we'd be better off avoiding use of the acronym entirely, since it is frustratingly ambiguous (L stands for Labor and Liberal), and would have absolutely no meaning for anyone who doesn't live in Australia. Direvus 21:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity. The Liberal Party's official name is the Liberal Party of Austrlia (LPA), and it is never referred to using that TLA. ALP is universally used to refer to Labor in Australia. Unlike GOP in the USA, ALP is a transparent acronym. SPD is frequently used outside of Germany to refer to the Social Democratic Party, and similarly, GOP is used outside of of the US. Further I don't think the specific mentionings in the article give rise to any ambiguity. Slac speak up! 21:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree there is no official ambiguity in the acronym, but there is plenty of ambiguity for anyone reading the article who is not familiar with Australian party terminology. If all you know about .au political parties is that there is a "Liberal" and a "Labor" party, "ALP" could just as well stand for either of them.

That is the labour party's official name. Any one who doesn't live in Australia wouldn't really care about howard. Why not put an internal link every time ALP is mentioned, so when someone clicks on it it will go to the Australian Labour Party article on this site. If you still object, for consistency's sake get rid of all acronyms on all articles in wikipedia. This is political correctness gone mad

If the article was in an Australian encyclopedia or website, I wouldn't even consider raising this objection. Given that it's on Wikipedia, I think it would be preferable to avoid region-specific terminology. Would it really hurt to say "Labor" instead of "ALP"? You're only saving two characters after all. Direvus
Just noticed that you added "(ALP)" after the first mention of the Labor party in the article ... good edit, makes the article much more self-sufficient. I maintain that the article would be better without the acronym at all, but this works. Direvus
Yeah, that should probably be followed in other articles as well. I do understand the problem for non-Australian readers (I'd advise against using "GOP" in American politics articles for example), but there is I think still some value in keeping the reference in there for educational purposes - since it might for example appear in quotes and in related reference works. Similar is the way that "Treasurer" is used in Australia, differently to the US, UK and New Zealand - but we still should call them "Treasurer", since it's the official title and will serve as a guide to anyone learning more about Australian politics. Slac speak up! 00:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hansonism

This discussion is in reference to the use of the word "Hansonism" in the line "Some saw Howard's lukewarm response to Hansonism as indicating either tacit support for its sentiments..." Is "Hansonism" an accepted term? I've never heard of it before. It suggests Pauline Hanson invented some new kind of philosophy, which I believe is untrue. Any objections in changing it to simply "One Nation"? --Pragitor 06:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hansonism has appeared in newsprint for many years. I'm sure you could find a cite in a newspaper article from the period. Slac speak up! 06:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Hansonism gets eighteen thousand Google hits. Do the math. :) Ambi 07:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Yep. Hansonism and Hansonite gained currency.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Gawd - you'd think I would have had the sense to Google the word! Sorry, I'll change it back to Hansonism.--Pragitor 23:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Hi,

I'm thinking of making the following changes to the article:

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


Changes I'd like to make, if I had the information. (Hint)

  • change "practising for some years" to "for N years" but I don't know what the value of N is.
  • state what office he held in the Liberal Party prior to becoming elected, if I knew what office it was.
  • state who he beat to become deputy

Regards, Ben Aveling 10:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)/Ben Aveling 21:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)/Ben Aveling 03:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)/Ben Aveling 08:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben, the correct procedure is to make your changes and see what happens, rather than list them all here. Some of them I would oppose, but I am not inclined to argue about changes which haven't been made yet. Edit wars are the Wikipedia equivalent of natural selection: without them there is no evolution. Adam 11:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, for smallish changes that's true. I think it's a courtesy to flag large changes before making them, at least for controversial pages, which perhaps this isn't. I'm happy to get into a back and forth. I don't want to get into an edit war.

Catch you later, Ben Aveling 08:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Too many Asians statement in 1988

Hi, someone removed the direct quote about johnnie's racist statement in 1988. So i'm trying to find something reasonably close to a direct quote rather than just n-th hand rewording.

There's lots of reworded stuff, e.g.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/australia/election_partyleaders.html CBC canada

In 1988, he was roundly criticized for a speech in which he claimed Australia was taking too many Asian immigrants.

http://backpagesblog.com/weblog/archives/000236.html blogger

I seem to recall it was he saying in 1988 in John Laws' studio that Australia had too many Asians, and that we should reduce the influx, "in the interests of social cohesion".

But the only detailed quote i can find is from the world socialists' web site (WSWS): http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/hiw5-j16.shtml

On August 1, 1988, when asked whether the rate of Asian immigration was too fast, Howard replied: “I think there are some people who believe it is. I wouldn’t like to see it greater, I am not in favour of going back to a White Australia policy. I do believe that if it is in the eyes of some in the community, it’s too great, it would be in our immediate term interest and supportive of social cohesion if it were slowed down a little, so that the capacity of the community to absorb was greater.” [6]

But they don't give the details of reference [6] - there's a reference [1]

Mark McKenna, Different Perspectives on Black Armband History Research Paper 5, 1997-98, Parliamentary Library, pp. 88-89

which is online: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1997-98/98rp05.htm but this is for citation [1] and not citation [6]. :(

There's some stuff on the HREOC (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) web site, but it only seems to be in google's cache (has johnnie closed down HREOC? i wouldn't be surprised...): http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/beyond_tolerance/speeches/markus.html (only in google cache right now)

Explaining the approach to be taken in a radio interview, Howard makes clear that in future there could be fewer immigrants from specific regions. In response to questioning as to whether his policy would lead to a reduction from Asia, he states: 'It could. Because if you have less family reunion, you may have less coming from Asia. It wouldn't be an aim … but that could happen'. Later the same day he is more direct. Asked whether the rate of Asian immigration is too fast, he states:
I am not in favour of going back to a White Australia policy. I do believe that if it is in the eyes of some in the community, it's too great, it would be in our immediate term interest and supportive of social cohesion if it were slowed down a little, so that the capacity of the community to absorb was greater.

i'm a bit reluctant to put up a citation for which our best source is thw WSWS. On the other hand, nobody seems to deny that johnnie made this claim. i myself remember this from back then - it was from that point on that he unambiguously defined himself in my eyes as a racist.

Hmmm, i see that there is the statement

In 1988 Howard's position was weakened by controversy following a speech in which he claimed that Australia's immigration rate was too high.

in the present wikipedia article - all that is missing is Asian. Given all the sources here, IMHO this should be a fairly NPOV consensus fact. Boud 16:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

i've put:

In 1988 Howard's position was weakened by controversy following a speech in which he claimed that the rate of Asian immigration into Australia was too high.

Boud 16:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"The Honourable" John Howard MP, his appropriate prefix

As Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, John Howard has the prefix to his name of "The Hon." like most PMs in the Commonwealth of Nations.

I think it is an essential part of his biography, and should appear at the beginning of the article as it is a part of his style and title.

I am wondering why this isn't included in his biography here on wikipedia, it is on other bios, and it works well.

Is this the consensus or merely the Adam Carr effect? What do other people think? I think we should change it, with sufficient support.--David_Ferrers 18:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

From the relevant Wikipedia entry "all ministers in Commonwealth and state (but not territory) governments are entitled to be styled The Honourable. Except in New South Wales and South Australia, the title is retained for life" Joestella 01:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So, are we in agreement then, should the title "The Honourable" be included on the wiki biographies for the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, and for Ministers under his administration? And, for that matter all Parliamentarians, Senators or Represenatives, in Australia who carry the title? I certainly think that they should be featured.--David_Ferrers 19:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No we are not in agreement. No paper encyclopedia includes the styling in its introductory John Howard article. I am eager to be proven wrong. Being entitled to a style does not mean it must appear in the heading (Why doesn't the article on Mark Latham begin "Mister Mark Latham . . ." Witness the endless (and to my mind, thoroughly stupid) controversy about His Majesty that was successfully solved by Jtdirl - to wit, no "his Majesties" "his holinesses" or "his excellencies" etc. are to appear in article intros. It's not the "Adam Carr effect", whatever that is, it's a desire for editorial clarity, directness, and consistency with all reputable encyclopedias. Slac speak up! 07:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I am indeed honoured to have an effect named after me. Does this entitle me to an article of my own? Adam 08:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Only if it's headed by the relevant stylings. William de Warenne, 6th Earl of Surrey
For the record, I agree with Adam and Lacrimosus. Having "The Honourable" at the start of articles has been creeping in for a while; perhaps it's time to have a scorched earth campaign and get rid of it permanently. Ambi 12:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
As an aside to the main debate, the word "Honourable" is almost never spelt out in practice, but abbreviated to "Hon". "The Hon John Howard MP" is perfectly acceptable in almost all, if not all, circumstances. JackofOz 12:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Except at the start of encyclopaedia articles. Adam 16:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding this topic, I've written at [7]. Please have a look. JSIN 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Too much detail?

  • Throughout the first half of 2005, the Howard government faced increasing pressure regarding the controversial mandatory detention program. It was revealed in February that a mentally ill German citizen and Australian Resident, Cornelia Rau had been held in detention for nine months. The government then established the closed non-judicial Palmer Inquiry promising that the findings would be made public. In May, it was revealed that another Australian, subsequently identified as Vivian Alvarez had been deported from Australia and that the department responsible was unable to locate her. By late May, it was revealed that an additional 200 cases of possible wrongful detention had been referred to the Palmer Inquiry.[8] [9] and also at this time Howard faced backbench revolt from small numbers of his own government demanding that reforms be made.[10] On June 2, it was revealed [11] that Cornelia Rau had been identified by the department as an Australian citizen 3 months prior to her final release from detention.

I've trimmed this. It happened on his shift, but the detail is better covered elsewhere. Ben Aveling 12:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted. That is not a long paragraph for what was arguably the biggest scandal of his term so far. Ambi 12:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

President or Prime Minister

Is there any reason that the info box at the right refers to John Howard as the President? Is says President from 11 March 1996 – present. Surely it should say Prime Minister. Given his views on the republic its an odd title to grant him. Terjepetersen 13:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Terjepetersen. I suspect the reason was that there was no PM infobox template. I created one, so now he is PM. Wulfilia 13:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Various things

Howard described himself as "the most conservative leader the Liberals have ever had,"

I can't google the quote on major news sites.

It sounds familiar. In fact, I think it's untrue - at least in the psychological sense of conservative==dislike of change. In the ecomonic conservative==individual over society, it's perhaps true. But would be nice to have a cite.

However, his dour and humourless style was no match for the charismatic Hawke and his acerbic Treasurer, Paul Keating.

Is describing him as dour and humourless encyclopedic?

It's accurate. There might be a more neutral way of putting it, but I can't think of it instantly. Maybe bland?

Howard's chances of winning the 1987 election were destroyed when the arch-conservative Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, launched a populist "Joh for Canberra" campaign, temporarily splitting and discrediting the conservative forces. Hawke won the 1987 election comfortably.

While Joh may have been discredited (I don't know when, though), were conservative forces as a whole "discredited"?

Not for long certainly, but it did make them look less credible to the electorate at that election.

In 1988, Howard's position was weakened by controversy following a speech in which he claimed that the rate of Asian immigration into Australia was too high.

Is this meaning his electoral popularity declined (if it did decline), or that his position as a leader declined (I guess Ruddock crossing the floor could indicate his position as leader declining)?

Both, in some sectors. Overall, I don't know.

In a "small target" strategy,

Was his strategy described as that? I thought it was used to describe Beazley's approach in the 2001 federal election.

I'm pretty sure it was. Even if the term was first used in 2001, Beazley's approach was seen as an attempt to do to Howard what Howard did to Keating, and at least in Australia, people know what the term means, so I don't have a problem with it. Though perhaps it should be explained? Is it worth its own page?

he consciously avoided enunciating a grand social vision in favour of an attack against Keating's "arrogance" and the "elitist" nature of his "big picture" politics - issues like foreign relations with Asia, Australian republicanism, multiculturalism and reconciliation with indigenous Australians - which, Howard believed, were irrelevant to ordinary voters.

Isn't attacking Asian integration, republicanism, multiculturalism and reconciliation a social vision?

He didn't present them as part of a grand vision, though he certainly had and has a vision of Australia as he wants it to be. His spiel was 'let's not'. Let's stay a monarchy, not try to advance multiculturalism or aboriginal reconciliation or relations with Asia beyond where they are. He didn't stand up and say 'we're going to throw all these things massively into reverse'.
I've had a go at fixing it. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

With his slogan "For all of us", Howard signalled his absolute preferment for ordinary, mainstream Australia over the unspoken "all of them" of "elite special interest groups".

Googling for "elite special interest groups" and "John Howard" got 4 unique hits. It looks like verballing to me.

He doesn't use the whole expression. He uses the word "elite" or "elites" to mean "people who think they know better than ordinary people". Google for "john howard" and "elites" or even "john howard" "elites" and "smh". Perhaps the quote after groups should be moved forwards.

Howard's lukewarm response was variously interpreted as either indicating tacit support for the sentiments, or as a disingenous attempt to harness their popularity among certain segments of the electorate.

Haven't some supported a "don't feed the trolls" approach to her?

Variously. But not Howard.

Prudent economic management remained the government's strongest trumpeting point throughout its term

Remove "prudent" and "trumpeting"?

I'd keep prudent. I might replace "trumpeting point" with claim. "Prudent economic management" is certainly a claim they make. The validity of the claim won't be completely clear for a few years yet. Things that might spoil it include record foreign debt and current account deficit, running down of infrastructure, asset sales greater than reduction in government debt, highest taxing government in Australian history, and the housing bubble.

In 1996, Australia was stunned when 35 people were killed by a lone gunman in the Port Arthur massacre.

"Lone gunman"? Sounds like it's talking about JFK assasination theories. Replace with Martin Bryant?

Perhaps. But we don't want to lose the sense of the sentance - that it made gun control a live issue.

The ban and an accompanying 'gun buy-back scheme' was popular with the general population but not with predominantly Coalition-voting gun owners.

I can't see the claim being backed up by anything in the link to Gun politics in Australia. I think predominantly may be a bit strong, for example [12] says that only 58% of Shooters Party preferences went to the Coalition.

Try this link [[13]]. Remember too that parties have a fair ability to direct the prefences of their supporters.
My head hurts after reading that! Got anything more reliable?

The Howard government did not have a majority in the Senate, instead facing a situation where legislation had to be negotiated past either the Australian Democrats or the Greens.

There's no mention of Mal Colston (who appears to lack a wikipedia entry) or Brian Harradine in this page. I thought they played a major role in the first part of privitisation of Telstra.

Probably. But isn't this bit about how the GST happened? I think Mal (who certainly deserves an entry) had gone by that point.
I don't think so. The section is from 1996-1998, and the GST wasn't introduced until after the 98 election. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

but the Liberals ran an effective US Republican style marginal electorate campaign and were returned with a comfortable majority in parliament.

US Republican style?

They got less votes overall, but won more seats. It's generally understood that they had been studying the tactics and techniques the US Republicans had used. I believe that included a focus on marginals at the expense of votes elsewhere, though I don't know enough about the US situations to say if this is conflating the issues of marginals and the borrowings from the US, or if marginal electorate campaign is a fair description of the us game plan.
It's not generally understood by me - I haven't heard such a claim before. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Although One Nation had previously surprised commentators with a resounding performance in the Queensland state election, its national campaign was poorly administered and One Nation failed to win any House of Representatives seats.

Minor parties failing to win lower house seats is not exactly evidence of a poorly administered campaign.

True, although they had one before hand and they were expected to win more. But I don't think that the failure to win any seats is the only reason to say that the campaign was poorly administered.
Maybe, but it sounds rather superfluous and POV-ish. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

An electoral redistribution had rendered Pauline Hanson's seat of Oxley unwinnable. She attempted to switch electorates to Blair but was defeated.

Replace "Attempted to switch" with "Stood in neighbouring electorate"?

Sounds good.
Done.

Howard broke with the previous bi-partisan policy of unquestioning support for Indonesia

Unquestioning sounds a bit pejorative. Also, didn't the ALP advocate a different policy on East Timor at the 1998 federal election?

What do you suggest?
Just remove unquestioning. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

and Australia contributed a significant peacekeeping/policing force to protect the inhabitants against pro-Indonesian militias, attracting wide praise both domestically and abroad.

It may have attracted wide praise domestically, but abroad? Indonesia (and Mr Bin Laden) weren't big fans.

It's certainly true, if unsurprising, that the action was unpopular in Indonesia. It would be nice to add something to that effect, if it doesn't overbalance the paragraph.
I've had a go at fixing it. Probably could do with expert attention...

This was intended to give the States responsibility for their own finances and end the annual funding squabble between the States and the Federal Government. The Federal Government continues to determine the share of GST revenue received by each state.

And thus the squabbling continues...

Oh yes indeed.

Howard's credibility, but not his popularity, was damaged when no weapons of mass destruction were discovered in Iraq.

This sounds a bit snarky and pointless.

This is Wikipedia. We try to balance all views. Sometimes we succeed. This might be one of the other times. The statement is perhaps a bit snarky, but it does seem to be true. At the moment, it seems that "it's the economy stupid" rings seriously true. A colleague said to me after the last election - I decided to hope that interest rates were the one thing he wasn't lying about. Perhaps we should say "Howard's credibility was seen to be damaged when no weapons of mass destruction were discovered in Iraq but it did his popularity was unaffected."

Although there are uncomfirmed reports the SAS was operating in Iraq prior to the formal opening of hostilities, elite Australian SAS troops were assigned to the Western Desert in Iraq, in which they have had hundreds of skirmishes with Iraqi troops and as well as having Saddams republican guard "hunter-killer" teams put bounties on the Aussie SAS teams, none of which have been sucessful.

The speculative information (starting before formal opening and the bounties) may be being given undue prominence here, especially considering the article has nothing on troops being sent to Afghanistan.

Hmm. I'm sure that sentance used to make sense. I think there are off the record reports that the SAS were used as scouts inside Iraq prior to the start of shooting. I've not heard anything about bounties.

Howard successfully exploited what he called Latham's indecisiveness over withdrawing Australian forces from Iraq, portraying this as a threat to the U.S.-Australia alliance.

Did Howard criticise Latham on indecisiveness, or was it more policy on the run? Does the first part of the sentence mesh with the second part?

I think Howard said that Latham was wrong, not that he was indicisive. He certainly presented the withdrawn of troops as a threat to the alliance. He may even have said that discussion of the possiblity of withdrawing troops was a threat to the alliance.
I've had a go at fixing it. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

During the campaign, Howard strongly attacked Latham's economic record as Mayor of Liverpool City Council, persuading the electorate that election of a Labor government would effectively see a rise in interest rates.

Replace "effectively" with likely?

Or just delete the word.
Had a go at fixing it. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The election resulted in an increased Coalition majority in the House of Representatives and it also government majority in the Senate from 1 July 2005, the first government majority in that chamber since 1975.

Is it neccessary to mention that the increase of the senate only applies from July 1 2005?

Probably not necessaray. It was important in the period between the election and July 1, but perhaps not any more. Now, the only impact is that there was a delay in howard's legislative campaign. Either way, it would be nice to be gramatically correct.
Ok. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A range of industrial relations bills seeking to exempt businesses from unfair dismissal legislation;

Some businesses, not all.

More than some. Most businesses are totally excempt, but no, not all. But all businesses are less exposed than they used to be.

greatly reduce the ability of workers to bargain collectively with employers; greatly reduce the ability of micro-companies to bargain collectively with large companies; weaken the power of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission;

Why are microcompanies (?) mentioned here?

Previously one-man companies such as owner-drivers and chicken farmers used unions to negotiate collective agreements with large companies. This was an allowed excemption to the trade practices act, but not any more.

Should "weaken the power of" be changed to "reduce the role of" for NPOV?

Probably. Does it still have any role?
Well, it hasn't been abolished, has it? Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Other legislation which had previously been blocked in the Senate includes

If that distinction is to be made (it seems superfluous), should VSU fall under that category?

Probably.
Done. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Despite the coalition's majority in the Senate, a number of the proposed laws are in doubt, due to the opposition that has been voiced by Queensland Senator Barnaby Joyce who had threatened to vote against the sale of Telstra, and who has raised concerns related to the industrial relations announcements.

Legislation for the sale of Telstra has passed, right?

Yes. And VSU. And IR.
I can't remember for certain all of the laws, so I'll leave it alone. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

On February 22, 2005 Howard announced that Australia would increase its military commitment to Iraq [10] with an additional 450 troops, breaking a campaign promise that no such increases would occur.

The source doesn't say he made a promise.

I see that someone has added such a cite.
Are you sure it isn't the non-applicable citation I was talking about? Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In mid 2005 John Howard and his cabinet began private discussions of new 'anti-terror' legislation

Sneer quotes. "Remove"?

Probably. The reason for the quotes might be that the actual impact of the legislation is much wider than terrorists.
Done. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This action was both praised and vilified.

Vilified -> criticised?

probably.
Done. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

On 2 November 2005, on the same day that controversial changes to industrial relations laws were introduced to Parliament, Howard held a press conference to announce that he had received information from police and ASIO that indicated an imminent terrorist attack in Australia.

First phrase is a speculative implication that the announcement was meant as a diversion.

That's certainly what all the papers said at the time. Given that the information was not new, it was widely seen as an attempted diversion.
Personally, I'm rather sceptical about that criticism, given how much prominence the government has given the changes in the form of advertising. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Could "imminent attack" be better phrased?

I hope so.

Within a week, on 8 November, anti-terrorist raids were held across Melbourne and Sydney, with 17 suspected terrorists arrested [17] (see Benbrika affair).

Replace "See Benbrika affair" with "including Abdul Nacer Benbrika"?

probably. Perhaps ", most notably Abdul Nacer Benbrika".
I've done it my way. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It is generally believed that Howard had a 'Kirribilli agreement' to hand over the leadership to Treasurer, Peter Costello. If so, the fact that Howard has reneged causes no distress to most Liberal parliamentarians who see Howard as far more electorally appealing than Costello.

There is speculation that Howard would prefer to see the leadership go to someone more in line with his own philosophical position, although there is no evidence that Howard plans to retire, so long as he has the support of a majority of the party room.

Too much speculation?

It's not original research if that's what you're suggesting. But I agree a cite would be good.
I've trimmed it down and toned it down. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

("the story of the intelligence officer who risked all to tell the truth about WMD and Iraq": cover)

Is it usual to have a blurb mentioned in the Further Reading section?

Not if it's as POV as that one is.
Fixed. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

John Howard Weblog - Satirical weblog.

Notable?

Probably not. Merely entertaining.
Fixed. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hansard, 2003-02-04: Howard's speech to parliament in which he puts forward his claims of imminent threat from Iraq as reasons for Australian support of the subsequent invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Remove the word "imminent", as he didn't use it about the regime in the speech.

Agreed. In fact, he used current tense: "possession of chemical and biological weapons and its pursuit of a nuclear capability poses a real and unacceptable threat".
Fixed. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Manildra affair

If the Manildra affair has moved elsewhere, should the references too? Andjam 02:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It should probably be worked into the text.
Regards, Ben Aveling 06:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I think there's something in the talk above about it moving elsewhere. Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Andjam 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

, someone removed the direct quote about johnnie's racist statement in 19

In the section Third term: 2001–2004 I don't why someone delete my comments where I added "large public protests against the war occurred" because there was large protests against the war as I didn't hear of protests for the war didn't anyone else?

And writing "it made gun control a live issue" in the discussion above I felt was not the right comment to make considering what happened at Port Arthur. 3.00am 13/2/2006

Disambig

If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, how come someone like JH gets the direct hit, rather than the disambig first? Notoriety? Surely NPOV would give him his place as JH disambig first, then the option to find him among others... 144.131.247.33 15:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with your logic, but if your logic was applied to all articles, let's say God for example, then we'd be searching for the likes of God amongst articles like the Gathering of Developers and GameCube Optical Disc. John Howard (the Australian prime minister) is quite possibly the most notable of John Howards. He does govern an entire country of more than 20 million people. But I do see your point. -- Longhair 15:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Howard (PM) gets the page because he is more notable than the rest of the Howards put together. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Look at that very carefully and see how POV that is 144.131.247.33 08:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It's an editorial decision. Of course it's going to have a POV. Putting the disambig first expresses the POV that John Winston is not significantly more notable than all the other John Howards. Slac speak up! 23:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Often with disambiging it is first come, first served unless a latter entry is far more prominent than the initial one. Xtra 08:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
This Joh HOward is the MOST prominent. Lets also be realistic by far most people searching John Howard will be looking for THIS article. This should be the standard by which we decide this one. Tmothyh

We currently have:

Two actors, two dukes, two sportsmen, a governor a prison reformer, a major and an architect. I could be wrong, but I think you could add all of them together and have less effect on the universe than JWH has had? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys, don't feed the troll. National leaders are virtually never disambiguated for good reason. Ambi 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I think a valid point has been made. The same way that I get annoyed when Americans put their people as first priority, we are assuming that John Howard is the most important of the people listed above which is very POV. I'd move it, but no doubt that would be reverted so I will leave it. Dankru 22:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with Australian chavinism. He's a national leader and thus ipso facto more notable. Slac speak up! 03:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Where would you move him to? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
An article titled John Howard (Australian Prime Minister). In a way it'd be more appropriate when he has retired or loses the top job. People forget Prime Ministers quickly.
Also, I have noted that George Bush article is a disambiguation page. Dankru 21:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
George Bush's father, who had the same name was also President. Xtra 23:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Never ever

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

Howard government achievments

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

How about you offer us a draft? Adam 09:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

sprotection?

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


Addition to Intro

I think the sentence already speaks for itself. He has control of both houses of parliament, that usually means he can pass whatever legislation he wants (if Barnaby agrees ;) ). No need for that addition. michael talk 08:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel it is important to include information about the Houses of Parliament for people who do not understand our system. >jwood74

It's like that in every system. It's common sense that if a leader/party controls both houses he has the power to push through legislation. michael talk 08:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not "like that in every system" - many systems of government don't have "both houses" to begin with, or they have a higher executive who can veto anything that comes through parliament (as indeed we do in Australia, but it never happens). On the other hand, I think saying that Howard "[has] the power to pass any Bill" is both simplistic and misleading. I don't think it belongs in the introduction. FiggyBee 12:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I really think this needs to be changed - he can only pass 'whatever legislation he wants' with respect to the constitution. This sentence clearly exists to give people the impression he can 'do what he wants'. 58.7.251.65 10:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't last part ("Unfinished business") need updating?

It appears to me that some of you very current with current Austrailian politics should update this; to my relatively uninformed eyes it appears to treat events occurring in December 2005 as still being current and ongoing when in fact they are somewhat past; additionally this is an important article about a current world figure, making this more important than similar tasks in other articles, especially since its potential for timeliness can be one of Wikipedia's greatest assets. Rlquall 01:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 01:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Selective deletion

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

Tampa—Norway—UN

I added a link to the UN document detailing Norway's complaints over the Tampa situation, (I think that drawing the international censure of Norway in the UN and breaking international law is at least as notable as the Cornelia Rau incident. Dananimal 02:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of notability as much as POV. Your additions were written in a POV manner. Xtra 06:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of this article is just singling out Howard's faults with a link to a media article (which subsequently makes it NPOV, doesn't it?). Not a suprise that people want to do this though. I doubt the article will ever be truely non-partisan. michael talk 13:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that's unfair. Howard made a decision on Tampa, which his supporters supported and his opponenents opposed. Howard made a decision on IR, which his supporters supported, and his opponents opposed. Howard made a decision on gun control, which some of his supporters opposed and some of his opponents supported. Howard said he wouldn't introduce a GST, then later introduced it. These are all, indisputably, major events in his Prime Ministership. I don't see what is wrong with the article describing them. Blanket, non-specific accusations of NPOV are always bound to rile people. Slac speak up! 23:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Dananimal's comments were PoV and I don't think a conviction is necessary for the accusation to be true but I doubt that any of us know enough about the Law of the Sea to make a definitive judgement. What's clearly NPoV is that an official complaint was made in the UN by Norway in the context of that Law ([14] p. 23). The Norwegian goverment can't be dismissed as mere "Howard haters"; I'm reinserting that sentence. Nick 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, from what I heard, the country that was actually required to accept them was Indonesia. But for some reason the Tampa took them out of Indonesian waters and towards Australia. How can it then be said that Australia breached its obligations when the Tampa should not have changed course. Xtra 01:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

I have changes SAS to special forces again as far more people understand what special forces means (the link continues to go to the SAS page as they are the special forces mentioned).—Dananimal 04:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Howard continued living at home with his mother until...

I had made an edit to reflect the following which was reverted as such I seek discussion of this preposal before making the edit again:

I feel that it is note worthy enough to mention that Howard stayed living in his mum's house until he was 32. I know that this is implicit from the date (1971) mentioned minus his year of birth (1971-1939=32).

As I have met a great deal of misbelief and interest from Australian voters (ie. those for whom Howard is most pertinant) when I have mentioned this fact, I belive that it is sufficiently peculiar (compared to Australian ideas of when children leave home) to be mentioned directly.

I think it is more pertinant to an understanding of what and who John Howard is than the fact that it happenned in 1971.

As such I suggest:

'Howard lived at home with his mother until he was 32, when in 1971 he married fellow Liberal Party...'

rather than:

'Howard continued living at home with his mother until in 1971, he married fellow Liberal Party...'

As my version continues to state what seem to be accepted fact and I have not used any adjectives which might seem POV I am interested as to why my edit was reverted without reason. I think that my edit provides information which is of interest more clearly than the original did.—Dananimal 04:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that in those days it was the done thing for a child to live at their parents' home until they got married. Maybe things have changed these days, but this chenges I believe is trying to read something into it which is just not there. Xtra 04:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
'those days' were quite recent historically.
What am I reading in that is not there.
Do you dispute that John Howard lived with his mother until the age of 32?
What are/is chenges? You comment is unclear.—Dananimal 05:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't dispue it, but dispute your motives for wanting to change the wording. Xtra 05:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the age of leaving home is of that much interest. Xtra 05:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It's true, but its there simply as an attack phrase. Tone and tune it down a bit: "Howard left the family home in 1971 when he met and married..." michael talk 05:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I am motivated as I consider the age to be more pertinant to the topic than the year. I would contend that 'How old were you when you left home?' would be a more common enquiry than 'what year was it that you left home?'. I think it would be equally note worthy if he had left home at the age of 16. I am also motivated stylistically in that I think it is a more interesting sentence to read while conferring more information.
How is it an attack phase? Readers can infer any opinion they like from the data.—Dananimal 06:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
You choose to use the word 'mother' and describe his behaviour as such to simply knock him down a peg. Writing an article is more than just stating the facts, its stating the facts appropriately and in an neutral-point-of-view fashion. You fail to do this; I see my suggested phrase as a worthy and more accurate substitute. Motivated towards a more 'interesting' sentence? You are simply trying to knock him down. michael talk 06:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The word mother was there before my edit. Why would someone not infer that Howard is a respectful son who values the company of and cares deeply for his mother.
I am certainly not suggesting an edit to: 'Howard's such a nancy sissy mummy's boy that he didn't find a way out of his mother's skirts for over three decades of drawing breath.' which is more fun and interesting to read but is highly POV and biased.
I think that the age at which he left home is a point of interest to many Australians, as such I want to include that fact explicitly without stating any specific opinion as to what that may indicate of Howard character.—Dananimal 06:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Now you are being facetious. I think this discussion ends here. Xtra 07:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect considering that Xtra is at University and that michael say's he is eighteen on his user page I think you guy's are seeing 32 as quite old. I am also wondering if you being closer to the beginning of your lives are more aware of your mother's infuence and/or are yourselves living at home, I was living at home for over a month at the start of this year and I turned thirty last year. I just think it is more interesting when the math to determine his age is removed. Both of you seem convinced that I am out to slight him rather than illustrate his life. Yet provide no more than your insecurities about the opinions that might be formed from the information. You two obviously find it of interest and form a negative opinion, which discomforts you as seeming politcal supporters. Which still means that you found it of interest.—Dananimal 07:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

How about:'Howard continued living at home to the age of 32, when he was married 1971 to fellow Liberal Party...'

No mention of mum.

The current edited reversion is not grammatically or syntactically correct!—Dananimal

Howard always lived at home, both before and after 1971 - the point is that until the age of 32, it was his parents' home. (It was both parents, wasn't it? Or was it just his Mum?) After 1971, it was his own home, at least till he became PM. Ben Aveling 08:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that in those days it was the done thing for a child to live at their parents' home until they got married. Maybe things have changed these days, but this chenges I believe is trying to read something into it which is just not there. Xtra 04:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

At the time, it was normal both to get married much younger and to leave home younger than it is these days. So if you like, Howard was a little unusual on both counts, especially the later. I guess it wasn't uncommon for unmarried women to stay with their parents, especially the youngest daughter. But I think it's unusual enough for men to be worth a specific mention. Certainly I've seen various political commentators mention it as an interesting thing about Howard when trying to understand his thinking on things. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Lyell Howard died during John's teenage years" Xtra 09:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant. Why? Because it shows why Howard has a complete lack of understanding on how real battlers have to struggle to survive, particulrly those on single incomes who did not have the luxury of staying at their parents into their 30s. He was old by standards back then (my mum left home at 17 and dad left in his mid 20s to the derision of his friends). It also goes to explaining his lack of empathy for the working class. Dankru 14:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. Now that shows just why it shouldn't be in there. It is being used by people like you simply to demean him to push your own POV. I am not preventing any facts from being written. It is demeaning statements like the one you want that I object to. You may think Howard is out of touch. But over 50% of Australians think he is in touch and re-elected him PM numerous times. Xtra 15:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No Original Research states that "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position. This appears to be a case where accepted facts are being synthesised in a novel way to make a point not made before, and is therefore a violation of WP:NOR. Snottygobble 11:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

From this section of this talk page alone it is plain that Xtra is a strong suporter of Howard and is clearly pushing his point of view. Snottygobble must be delerious with power and/or a Howard supporter also pushing POV, claiming that simple arithmatic constitutes a violation of policy by synthesising new data is so rich I can smell it from the other side of the country. If you were concerned with the spirit of the policy there are countless examples of insupportable material all over wikipedia, you are clearly using the letter of the law to enforce your POV. —Dananimal 00:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, I'm delirious with power and I love John Howard. Fortunately my mental state and political leanings have nothing to do with this argument. The real issue is: does the fact that Howard stayed at home until he was 30 "show why Howard has a complete lack of understanding on how real battlers have to struggle to survive" (quote from Dankru above)? I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that it is dangerously difficult to impute the influences and causes of a person's intellectual and emotional make-up over a span of three decades. And I strongly suspect that Dankru's statement isn't the considered and rational position of an expert on the subject. On those grounds his opinion has no place in the article. Snottygobble 00:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SnottyG that any inference drawn from this about 'lack of empathy to battlers' would be no more than personal opinion and quite likely OR, and therefore inadmissable. But I also agree with Dananimal that the phrase "Howard lived in the family home/at home with his mother/parents until he was 32.." is a rather innocuous and verifiable statement, I don't see the problem with including it. Is it any less relevant than other biographical data not directly connected with his political career such as where he was born, what school he went to, etc.? Let the reader make of it what they will, the statement itself is non-judgemental. And whether any given editor's contribution is motivated by their political admiration of Mandela, Mussolini or Screaming Lord Sutch should not be relevant, as long as the contribution itself adheres to Verifiability and NPOV.--cjllw | TALK 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would draw your atention back to my proposed change, which is to replace the year AD that Howard left his mother's house to his age at that time. I don't really give a rodent's sphincter what Dankru feels about Howard's powers of empathy. The fact is not disputed, by definition Howards age is more relevant to the page topic than the approximate number of solar cycles since the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. I would like this change rationaly discussed, which seems very difficult. I feel my suggestion is plainly more relevant to the topic and saves readers doing arithmathmatic to find his age at the time in question.—Dananimal 15:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What about the real unfinished business - reconciliation?

I´m surprised to find almost no mention of the Howard government´s policies regarding reconciliation. Given this was a significant issue during his second term with several reconciliation marches including senior ministers like Costello calling for a national apology to indigenous people. Howard was noticibly absent and continually refused to issue such an apology instead putting forward the notion of practical reconciliation. more recently there is the abolishment of ATSIC and much criticism over the lack of a replacement. To use the title 'unfinished business' without refering to indiginous people almost seems like a political snub in itself! Pugsworth 17:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm quickly collecting some references to the 2000 reconciliation protests which seem to be absent from the article. Specifically the conference at which indigenous leaders turned their backs toward Howard as he made his address would seem a particularly notable thing to happen to a Prime Minister.
I will re-read the article carefully when I have a bit more time, quick scanning and a text search seem to indicate that this widely publicised incident has been omitted. If it has been it indicates that a serious revision of this article for bias need be undertaken, omitting this event speaks to a severe attitude of historical revisionism and partisan selective memory, I hope this has not been the case.—Dananimal 16:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfinished business

Howard faced backbench revolt from small numbers of his own government. This doesn't make sense, how can they be members of the government if they are backbenchers? Alun 10:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You have cabinet and Government confused. Government is all Members of Parliament from the Lib/Nat Coalition, whereas a minister is a member of the cabinet. The Government includes both the frontbench and the backbench; the cabinet is only the frontbench. With regard to the link that you have incorrectly piped, a member of the government is not always a minister.--robz0r 11:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
No I don't, it is you who is confused. The government is all members of the coalition who work in government departments, in the UK for example it would include PPSs, these are not ministers but they do work for ministers (and are expected to vote with the government), ministers run government departments. The cabinet is just the most senior members of government, who form the executive. Backbenchers are not part of government, this link was not incorrectly piped and explicitly states this. Alun 18:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually in Australia the Cabinet is the set of all ministers, which is simply too many people to put on the Executive Commitee, so half the Cabinet are designated junior ministers and excluded from the Executive. The Executive consists of the Governor-General and the senior Cabinet. Snottygobble 23:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pest, but it is actually entirely the oposite. All Ministers are members of the executive council, but only the most senior are members of cabinet. Xtra 00:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Alun. Backbenchers are not members of the government. They are merely members of the political party that is currently in government. The statement is incorrect and should be changed. Snottygobble 03:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Just to follow up on this, the article backbencher defines the term as:
"A backbencher is a Member of Parliament or a legislator who does not hold governmental office and is not a Front Bench spokesperson in the Opposition."
I have corrected the article. Snottygobble 03:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because a member of parliament "doesn't hold governmental office", doesn't mean they are not a member of the government. But in this case the word "party" seems a clearer one to use than "government". I'd be interested to see someone cite a reliable source that says backbenchers are not members of the government. The article backbencher doesn't cite any source for its definition. Alan Baskin 05:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

hmm interesting, I agree the word party is most clear in this case. for interest though looking at the article Government of Australia, it seems clear that the Australian constitution defines government as including the three branches of executive, legislature, and the courts. This would be the technical definition. My understanding of the way the term is normally used in Australia though is that it refers to all members of the governing party. The constitution though never refers to political parties which is why the situtaion has become unclear. if you want to narrow the technical definition you would need to choose either between the executive or the legislature. both of these seem inadequate to me as the legislature includes members of the opposition while the executive cannot govern (´pass and enforce laws´ according to the article on government) without the support of a majority of the legislature\parliament. So I think in Australia´s case at least we end up with a technical and nontechnical definition which are quite different.Pugsworth 13:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

When most people say 'government' in Australia they really mean the Cabinet. The 'definition' however usually refers to the whole apparatus, including the Government departments etc. If anything it should be changed to 'a backlash from his own party (or coalition)' in more common terms. 58.7.251.65 09:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And have you done some research to back up your assertion that "When most people say 'government' in Australia they really mean Cabinet"? Its more likely that most people mean the 'Liberal-National Coalition', when they say 'government'. I'm more inclined to go along with Pugsworth's suggestion that the term government 'refers to all members of the governing party'. Alan Baskin 12:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
No research, just common sense. When someone says the 'government' has made a decision they don't normally mean the party itself has made a decision. In any case in the context of this part of the article 'own party' or 'party room' are far more appropriate. 58.7.251.65 13:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Surely articles in Wikipedia should be based on fact, not just one person's idea of common sense -- which to someone else might just be nonsense. You're right though, 'own party' or 'party room' are more appropriate in this case. Alan Baskin 00:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The word "government" does not necessarily have a single technical meaning. The Free Dictionary gives several definitions, including: 

5. A governing body or organization, as:
 a. The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
 b. The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
 c. The persons who make up a governing body.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=government Arguing that government backbenchers are not part of the government seems just a bit silly. What are they? Members of the opposition? A Google phrase search reveals the phrase "government backbenchers" is in common use, including in the Australian media --Wm 00:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Honest John

I put in some text referring to the name "Honest John". Both times it has been reverted. This is not vandalism on my part. I happen to know that he has often been referred to as "Honest John". That is a fact. Surely it is a political standpoint or in Wikipedia terms, POV, if people revert it. Opponents to John Howard may not like the fact, but, he is known as being an honest politician. The citation I mentioned said that 60% of the public think he is trustworthy, and that is very high for anyone, let alone a politician. So can you now give me a reason why you keep reverting this. Wallie 17:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the intro but if everyone thinks it's important it could go into a Nicknames and Epithets section. Certainly he's been called "Honest John" enough times for it to be noteworthy but it's just so hard to get the PoV out of it. I mean, it started out as an ironic nickname [15] but he then embraced it as an accurate description for the '96 election (e.g. when first taking govt his ministerial code of conduct was much stricter than it is now). That's just an edit war waiting to happen! Surely the famous Kennett-Peacock conversation is also noteworthy but I suspect that it might get reverted if anyone were to mention the fact that Kennett called him a cunt. So I would recommend that we just leave all nicknames out altogether. Nick 19:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no POV in the removal of the reference Wallie, nor was its insertion vandalism. It simply isn't appropriate for the introductory paragraph. And your understanding of the epithet is incorrect; "Honest John" has always been an ironic derision used by his opponents.--cj | talk 05:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I was pretty annoyed. A New Zealand admin used this as a trigger to initiate a process towards a RfC and arbcom against me! Then an Australian admin wrote to me saying I was "pushing an agenda". Why is it that people always suspect evil motives in others? I was helped out personally by John Howard, while in Australia, and I was at that time an ALP supporter! I happen to think and also know that he was far more honest than some other Australian politicians around at that time... Naturally I have no desire to start an edit war over this. I also take the point about Kennett-Peacock, Nick. It was a private telephone conversation that was transcribed, was it not? Howard's real character came out at the time. He did not lose his cool, as others might have. I think he has a lot of fine qualities. Wallie 21:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

First home buyers grant

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

"Core" and "non-core" promises

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Howard/Archive_2&oldid=1136849806"