Talk:John Howard/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

John Winston Howard aka Bushy Man??

Someone needs to either revert this or unprotect the document. No reference is cited that John Howard has ever been referred to as 'Bushy Man'. Sounds like someone managed to slip their own criticism in before the document was protected. Can someone please fix this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.91.169 (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• All taken care of!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What subversive edits?

The edits the press have been referring to are these: Special:Contributions/210.193.176.115. I can count four edits to political articles, all very trivial, including one (at Peter Costello) being a simple vandalism fix. If Howard's staffers really are trying to improve his image on Wikipedia, then they're not working very hard at it, preferring instead to edit Gang-gang Cockatoo. There is absolutely no way this story deserves a mention in the JWH article. The only story here is the way the media takes a press release with the word "Internet" in it and runs with it without checking the facts. Peter Ballard 12:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if they would be similarly outraged at the removal of such intellectual material as "John Howard is a c___". Fools. Vandalism reversion makes national news. What the hell.--Yeti Hunter 14:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not about the quality of the edits, or specific details of them, it is about the fact that the government wasted tax-payers money for engaging public servants in something Kevin Rudd calls "Rewriting of history". Although I consider Rudd's comment mainly as pre-election rhetoric, there is some vital truth in it. Wikipedia offers the chance to write, at least for a while, an unbiased account of contemporary history. I live in Australia, and government officials engaged in manipulating information and public opinion is nothing I would expect (or take for granted) from a democratically elected government. And as the section deals with the Howard Government (even though some smarty renamed the section), it is well worth mentioning. That's more the style of the Soviet Union. Simply removing the content, even though it confirms with WP:LPB, is considered vandalism. You might want to balance it, if you consider it POV. -- Lord Chao 08:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that government officials were editing articles in an official capacity? If you look at the list of edits it is obvious, and blindingly obvious, that it is just individuals doing random edits. Peter Ballard 08:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What I think about this event is irrelevant. It happened during JH's time as PM, it has caused echoes in media worldwide and politics in Australia. We have sufficient space to hold even detailed accounts of ongoing developments. The fact that a lot of people want to participate in collecting all sources of information relate to JH reflects certainly a public interest in his person. Simply removing sourced material just because you think it's irrelevant remains vandalism IMHO. Once too much information is collected to usefully fit in a single article, sub articles can be created. However, I can imagine that WP visitors (as internet users) could have an interest in the internet related policies and events linked to the Howard government. --Lord Chao 10:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I was actually trying to discuss the truthfulness of the claims. Whether to put them in the article is being discussed in the section above, and I'll answer that there. Peter Ballard 12:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's most likely to be bored interns mucking about on Wikipedia in their spare time. Seriously, look at the pages edited. Wentworthville Magpies, City of Griffith, Chain volume measure, Gang-gang Cockatoo... hardly any of it is controversial in the slightest. BTW, [1] is the much publicised "Captain Smirk" edit. Sinister whitewashing indeed.--Yeti Hunter 16:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

But according to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald, scores of edits were made by employees at the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet -- including the removal of a reference to Treasurer Peter Costello as "Captain Smirk".

On Howard's controversial policy of mandatory detention for illegal asylum-seekers, an employee inserted the word "allegedly" into a statement saying immigration detainees were subject to inhumane conditions."

Jig is up you are using taxpayer money to edit free speech, obviously wether john denies it (as usual) or not your actions on attacking free speech and subverting the truth are obvious to all.

Again: over a period of more than a year, it is 4 edits in total to political articles. One was a vandalism fix, the other 3 were very minor. The "scores" were mostly to topics like bird life. Don't believe everything you read in the paper, check them yourself (see link above). Peter Ballard 04:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the manipulation of mandatory detention] is worth mentioning. Plus the fact that the story circulates around the globe, unlike plenty of things already in this biography. Anybody how knows a bit about the working of the internet knows that an ip address can unveil your identity. The situation of detainees won't get better by having a nicer article here, but i think wikipedia is not the place for government propaganda. --Lord Chao 13:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nor is it the place to make a point. Even if they did add the word "allegedly" - so what? It's not like they have an entire department dedicated to sanitising Wikipedia. This is a very very small number of edits we are talking about. "Attacking free speech" - so if you work for the government you automatically waive your right to said freedom? Come off it, please.Yeti Hunter 00:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised with what kind of arguments you try to counter. I haven't stated anywhere that an entire department is busy editing, nor that JH personally gave the order to do so. However, as I consider people working for the government similarly smart as any other random group, to thinks are worth considering:

1) Who knows how to edit wiki, will know how to do it from home as well. And there are anonymisers that allow you to do so without being caught by wikiscanner

2) Although the majority of edits is compliant with Wikipedias policies, some aren't. There is a definite interest of the Howard government to beautify the situation of asylum seekers in Australia, as it can be considered a breach of Human Rights, and offshore detention is about 20-50 times more expensive than the inland detention centres.

If you insist that a direct link to Howard is needed to include this abuse of power, I could claim the same for all the governments "successes". Denying responsibility on the top of the command chain is not a sign for a healthy democracy. Excluding all references to the Brethren Link (which is much thicker than the wiki-edit link) even from the talk page looks like sanitizing as well. Lord Chao 08:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So you are claiming that government people are using anonymisers to edit Wikipedia? Where is your evidence? Where is your evidence that the government (not merely hackers who happen to be Liberal sympathisers) is "beautifying the situation of asylum seekers" on Wikipedia? Peter Ballard 09:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[2] Changing human rights violations from fact to allegation is in my POV not minor. I'm not claiming that people who are convinced of the necessity of governments (or work for it) use anonymisers to edit wikipedia, frankly, you cannot say to which country, party, religion, social strata, etc someone like this belongs to, because they are anonymous. For the same reason you cannot claim that they don't, unless you can prove the moral superiority of people working for governments. But you don't even need to be anonymous, anyone can edit and choose a nick. With the limited internet infrastructure only the government might track dynamic IPs of Australian internet users to name and address, so theoretically even John Howard himself could via Telstra or Optel edit here undetected, or rather disguised by the scarcity of providers. (No, I absolutely don't think JH edits here.)

Basically, you seem to be convinced of a bad apple, while I suspect a tip of an iceberg. The international media links the Howard government to this event, and Howard is outside Australia not really well known. The reader interested in more details can decide for herself/himself how she/he considers the edits - either as fuzzyfication of facts or as time killer for bored civil servants. Reducing the information to what Australians deem relevant ignores IMHO the international character of wikipedia.--Lord Chao 13:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So long as the correct information is presented, i.e. one biased edit over a two year period from inside the PM's department. Peter Ballard 23:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

One confirmed biased entry directly from the PM's department. I'm sorry, but as a member of Family First I don't consider your POV neutral, when it comes to John Howard. I live in Victoria, where you get fined for 61 kmh in a 60 zone. Why I should I be forgiving and forgetting for the Australians governments (hapless) attempts to manipulate international public opinion? What is the rational behind including niceties that never left Australia's mediascape while this event, which captured global interest, is omitted? --Lord Chao 01:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Check my edit history if you think I'm biased. I've done lots of "anti-Howard" edits. It's just that I've declared my real name and my political affiliation, you have not. Peter Ballard 02:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Global interest? Yeti Hunter 01:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You're excused.

• Canada
• NZ
• UK

The story made it to America and Europe, I would call this global. --Lord Chao 01:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

All a bit irrelevant in view of the fact the PM's department denies it is their IP address: http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/24/2014759.htm Peter Ballard 02:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude. Come on. You edit wikipedia. You know as well as anyone that vandalism reverts happen many times a day on the Howard page. You also know that if someone adds a POV entry, it will be reverted very quickly. The fact that news broadcasters are sensationalising it into a story does not make it one.Yeti Hunter 03:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Yeti Hunter, after my addition of Howard's WikiGate was removed twice without giving any convincing reason why, I stopped trying to insert it. So I did "come on". However, I fail to see my addition as POV entry or as vandalism. News broadcaster sensationalise nearly any covered topic, and with too much time at hand I could start a deleting spree here as well, removing parts I would consider not worth mentioning. Obviously, the story is far from being over, as the opposition uses it chance to exploit it for election campaigning. The denial from the side of the government gives it a new spin.

After the revising the changes made I felt like giving in to the peer pressure here. Rudd's accusation of "changing history" is IMHO over the top. If someone in the PM's office would be man enough to say: "Yeah, I did it, I'm sick of those commies wanting a flood of poor immigrants, Johnnie didnt know about it, we stopped trying to teach how to use a computer, so there was no point in even telling him.", well, then, it's 100% off the target. However, the claim that somebody else used the IP can probably be verified, and if the denial turns out to be a lie, it belongs absolutely in here.

Dear Peter Ballard, only a minority of people are politically affilliated, Barry Jones estimated that about 50,000 Australians are member of political parties. I might have misunderstood him, and he was talking just about Labour. Even if we double this number it would imply that about a half percent of all Australians are affilliated with a party. Family First is, according to my mates in a non-partisan political discussion club, oriented friendly towards JH. I would certainly object if you added content to the Family First article, here I'd rather assume good faith.

FYI, Anarcho-syndicalism comes closest to my political ideology. However, as our society seems to be not grown up enough for anarchy on a large scale, my primary interest is strengthening the democratic ideas of accountability and transparency in government. Therefore, I'd rather focus on deeds than on words of politicians. I'm shocked how many peers call Howard "leader" instead of treating him for what he is: the highest ranking civil servant.

I use the name "Lord Chao" consistently on the web for about 12 years. I'm quite surprised that it is only used by about two other persons, so you have good chances to find out a lot about me (and my opinions). --Lord Chao 09:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can come up with a diff sourced from PM&C that does more than revert vandalism on a political article, there's no relevance here. It's just hot air, and you shouldn't waste our time giving legs to a dead horse. --Pete 01:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lord Chao, I wasnt accusing you of vandalism or POV editing, rather, I was saying that the accusations against the unknown editor from the Howard Government are insignificant in the context of Wikipedia's mechanics. "Captain Smirk" was vandalism; it was reverted. Adding the word "allegedly" could be construed as POV, it too was reverted. Stock-standard Wikipedia in action. No story here. Regards, Yeti Hunter 07:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Early Life: Howard & mother home alone

I am going to remove the text claiming that after Lyall's death, Mona Howard (mother) looked after John and all the other brothers. All the references I've seen contradict this. The online newspaper references state that after Lyall's death, Mona & John lived alone in the house. The other brothers were much older and had already moved out by then.

It's a minor point, but if it is incorrect then it should be removed.

I created this discussion topic purely so that the removed text can be seen by all, and in case the editor who wrote the text wishes to add it back in after re-checking the facts. The reference that has been supplied with the text is from a book which is not online and difficult to verify. Maybe the originating editor could quote the book's text if it contradicts the other online references.

Here is the entire paragraph as it was before I made any changes:

Lyall Howard died in 1955 when John was sixteen, leaving his mother to take care of John (or "Jack" as he was known in the family) and his three brothers.

The only change I will make is to remove the words "and his three brothers".

Opposition to Gay Marriage

The article currently lists Mr Howard's opposition to Gay marriage but I think that edits reflecting his continued opposition to removing laws discriminating against Gay and Lesbian citizens should be allowed. I find it confusing how he can lend support to the Exclusive Brethren by saying they operate within the law, but discriminate against many homosexual couples who do the same. Grantrosehill 11:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantrosehill (talk • contribs) 11:10, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

The issue of gay marriage is mentioned in the 2004 section. However, Howard is again vehemently opposing it again in the current campaign. I think think it deserves mentioning, but you'd also have to say that Howard has 100% support from the Labor Party on the issue, even though both don't reflect public opinion in Australia.Lester2 21:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Confused editors aside, just what relevance does the ALP's stance on GALM have to this article? I think Howard's over-riding of the ACT's bill is worth a mention. Not sure that it remains an election issue of any significance. --Pete 22:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It does to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.9.133 (talk) 11:29, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea who you want to address with Confused editors, Pete. Again, as part of the current campaign it is worth mentioning, and given the average homophobia in Australia, it is an important one. If politicians ride the same horse twice, because it worked so well, it might even gain more importance.

I'm only guessing here, but if it was a sourced section which was deleted I vote to reinstate it. --Lord Chao 13:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

See the "I find it confusing ..." statement above to find the confused editor, and as a bonus you also get some doublethink from Lester2. This issue hasn't become significant during the current campaign, as you imply, but if you can find a front-page story from a major daily, then don't keep it under your hat. --Pete 18:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate a bit more civilised behaviour, Pete. Your comment about "doublethink from lester2" is an ad hominem attack, which gives your arguments less credibility. You always argue with "relevance", but pls accept that your view of relevance is not commonly shared. You don't even try to argue or rebut arguments - in this way tou might simply encourage users interested in NPOV to simply revert all your changes. --Lord Chao 01:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Brother, if you had actually read Lester2's contribution, you'd see that my reference to doublethink isn't any sort of ad-hom attack. It's my gentle sense of humour at work. Oh look. I've just rebutted your argument that I don't rebut arguments. And done it in such a way as to raise a smile on the reader's jaded face. And thanks for acknowledging that I set you straight on the issue of confused editors when you asked. No trouble at all. Now, if we could get back to talking about the article, rather than each other...? --Pete 03:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Brother, you put a smile on my face. Doublethink is a bit harsh in ASCII, so i must have misunderstood your humour. I still think the topic is worth mentioning, but there are more than enough reasons to delete the edit you pointed me to. Sorry for shooting from the hips, I'm still new and need to learn. :-) Lord Chao 12:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Gun control: info on semi-automatic handguns deleted

Info on semi-automatic handguns was deleted from the article, because it did not look very positive for John Howard's image. The edit can be seen here. Lester2 21:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT Shot info 22:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The deleted content was only 1 sentence long. How can it be "undue weight"?Lester2 23:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Because far, far greater criticism was from pro-gunning groups than anti-gunning groups. (Remember the bullet proof vest?). To only mention the latter is giving "undue weight". Peter Ballard 23:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I do remember the bullet proof vest. Both facts should be included. So he was praised for restricting rifles, a move which upset gun owners, though he was also criticised for not extending the ban to semi-automatic handguns. There's the whole lot in one sentence. Why not include it all? Do we have some kind of space problem in this article? Seems like censorship of criticism is a factor here. The praise remains, but the criticism is deleted. Lester2 01:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a good suggestion, feel free to make it so. BTW, just because you keep saying there is censorship, doesn't make it so. The continual lack of response from the community with all the relevant ANs and RfC propably should give a hint that there is some wolf being cried...or maybe it's just the dark forces at work :-).

BTW, is there a source other than the SMH for third party verification? It seems odd to have a BLP littered with newspaper reports. Shot info 01:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the edit (above) there were 2 references already attached to the handgun information. One SMH, the other ABC.Lester2 03:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, the criticism isn't that prevalent (WP:WEIGHT) but it is my personal opinion that the information be included for completeness. Other editors may find differently though. BTW, the first reference is a Op piece, which probably doesn't meet RS and the second is the transcript of an interview, which again probably is a poor RS. BUT if you read my comment "it seems odd to have a BLP littered..." not just your particular edit. Shot info 03:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those references criticises Howard for the action he took in 1996 (in fact SMH one praises him). Neither of those references even refers to criticisms over handguns in 1996. To turn those references into criticims of Howard's actions in 1996 (and Beazley's; let's not forget it was bipartisan), is to misrepresent the references. Therefore the sentence should be deleted. Peter Ballard 04:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

John Howard gained significant community support for his strong leadership on the issue. In fact his first words in Parliament as Prime Minister were in response to the tragedy, outlining his plan. And Kim Beazley's first words in Parliament as Opposition Leader were in direct support of Howard. Yet there was significant opposition, mainly from legitimate firearms users, but with some of the most vocal being what I would describe as "gun nuts". Both views should be included as a matter of balance, and references found to support them. --Pete 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement on interest rates is wrong

The article says:

During Howard's time as Treasurer, home loan interest rates peaked at 12.5% in September 1982, and the 90-day cash rate peaking at 21% on 8 April 1982.

It was inflation that peaked at 12.5% in September 1982 (see http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/historical_cpi_data.xls ) The 90-day cash rate peaked at 22% on 8 April 1982 (see http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/Bulletin/F01Dhist.xls )

How about this instead?:

During Howard's time as Treasurer, inflation peaked at 12.5% in the quarter ending September 1982, and the 90-day cash interest rate peaked at 22% on 8 April 1982.

220.253.82.93 03:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think its acceptable. Hornplease 20:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)