Jump to content

Talk:John Howard/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 18

Prime ministership of John Howard

This article has been recreated, and if successful will spread to all PMs. Please improve the page or add comments to it's talk page as you see fit. Timeshift (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree that two articles is a good thing but disagree with the working title. --Brendan [ contribs ] 09:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was being made as a proposal at this stage, but content is already disappearing from the John Howard article and being moved to the Government article.Lester 11:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Re-structure

While some people are getting very bogged down in the issue of a single incident regarding JH's comments on Obama, no-one seems to be too concerned that the overall structure of this article is terrible - no-wonder it has a POV tag on it - it needs a significant reworking now that JH has been deposed - the way the article is written is only appropriate to someone still in power, and this alone gives it an unacceptable bias towards content that is indeed trivial. Now that HOward has gone, the article needs to be summative and informative about Howard's political positions, his modus operandi, his policies and achievements, the alliances he had etc etc. We don't need a blow by blow account (which this is) anymore. Doing this will help us to determine whether or not incidents such as the Obama comments are actually significant. Without a clear structure for the article, we will waste our time playing games over very small pieces of text within something that is deeply flawed at the structural level. Its a case of not seeing the wood for the trees. I for one have moved on to removing content that seems misplaced or trivial in the post-Howard era. It feels sometimes as if people are fighting over Howards currency as a politician - but he's gone! He's history! The piece needs to be written as a historical work. Eyedubya (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm "so over" all the hysteria and drama being whipped up over what is really a trivial piece of information. I think a few editors (on both "sides") need to take a good look at themselves (and the length of this talk page) and think what is happening - all this energy and keystrokes.
The article should be split into John Howard (the biography) and the Howard Government. This idea already got wide support. This would see the JH article get a lot shorter and focus on specific events that really relate to him - no re-hashes of his govt policies and criticism. The list of tidbits (particularly bad for the oh-so "recentish" 2004-2007 section) should then go into the Howard Govt article, and only some major things from PM-ship should be in the JH biography.
For God's sake, move on. thanks Eyedubya for seeing the bigger picture. --Merbabu (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Eyedubya, exactly the point I was making. The entire thing needs a makeover, and I have academic sources, some in PDF format which I'd be happy to send (one at a time though!) to anyone who wishes to work on the article. Those with academic access may be interested in the June 2007 edition of the Australian Journal of Political Science which devoted its entire issue to analyses of the Howard decade. A lot of the less significant stuff, PARTICULARLY the huge sections relating to the last three years, should probably go, while the periods 1977-83, 85-89 and 95-00 in particular should be expounded on in greater detail. However I do not want this sort of mission to become a partisan scrubbing of the article, which all evidence to date suggests might be a possibility. I would actually like to see a cross-partisan group be able to meet in the middle and decide what should stay and what should go, hopefully to the satisfaction of most (if not absolutely everybody). What do others think of this as a way to proceed? Orderinchaos 12:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If possible, leave the current article and set up a working draft for the re-write. Maybe that's naive, but it seems better than trying to deal with the edit warmongers before moving on. Since you're the one with the sources, you could set this up on your talk page, or something that hangs off it? Eyedubya (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, right at the moment I'm dealing with assignments and exams, until mid next week, and the only reason I'm on here is I'm too sick to get any real work done thanks to the latest bout of the cold. :P I'm happy to help out but the bulk of my work won't be immediate on it. Orderinchaos 13:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Okey dokey, no worries. Whenever you're ready. Eyedubya (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


I think there is emerging agreement that the article needs a restructure now that Howard is out of office. I'm not going to volunteer, but I think a good way to do this is for some brave soul to restructure the article the way they think it should look, but not delete or add any content as part of the restructure, to minimise chances of reversion. The alternative is to try and work out a structure on the talk page, but IMHO that is likely to be derailed for various reasons, and has a high risk of 'forking' i.e. the main article changes while the restructure is being discussed. If one person initiates the restructure, then hopefully we will have a cohesive structure to subsequently modify. If we restructure by committee, we are likely to end up with a mess. --Surturz (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There are at least 2 conversations about this running concurrently. Orderinchaos seems to be in a good position to be the one to run with a major re-structure, given his access to academic sources. Meanwhile, mini-revisions are proceeding anyway. Some minor additions to content are necessary because re-arranging the article around themes sometimes requires additional framing and linking statements. Eyedubya (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I’m also happy with doing a re-structure. I could do this from Monday but not in main space. I will be using the existing materials to start with, and I will confer with Orderinchaos to make sure we don’t go down to different lines. --Merbabu (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

lateral thought

While thinking about ways in which to reduce the issue with this article and resolve to some extend the heated debate that have been a significant feature of this article. I thinking that we need to look for ways in which a greater diversity of opinion and events can be covered. Lets consider possible daughter articles;

  1. Prime Minister John Howard -- this article focuses on the period in which he was the Prime minister, including the events before the 1996 election when he became leader of the opposition
  2. John Howard MP -- This focuses on his time as a member of Parliament with two options;
  1. included time as PM
  2. have a subsection with link to a main PM article

What I think is that this will allow broader coverage of the periods and distill his BIO article down to a manageable size with link(s) to theses articles via simple 2 para sections that give the main features, ie dates, ministerial positions, number of election wins. I knoiw that this isnt standard BIO articles and potentially POV forks, but I think the volume of information that could/should be covered warrants the articles. Gnangarra 13:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "Howard government (yyyy-yyyy)" and "John Howard" would be a more useful dichotomy. The "John Howard" article could then become the snappy biographical retrospective it should be and the "Howard government (yyyy-yyyy)" article could be more expansive. --Brendan [ contribs ] 18:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that "Howard government (yyyy-yyyy)" wouldnt be the right direction we already have government articles, what I was looking for was taking periods of JH life into daughter articles Gnangarra 14:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
My view is that an article on the "Howard government (yyyy-yyyy)" would be the one to periodise, whereas the BLP of "John Howard" ought to be organised as a combination of periods and themes relevant to his political persona. Since most of the main themes Howard articulated go back a long way before he became PM, the predominant structure should be thematic, so that the way these ideas were transformed, implemented, frustrated, etc. can be traced. If the article uses the current structure of periodisation it will be nigh-on impossible to follow the threads of Howard's politics and his impact as a politician. If there are especially interesting periods in HOward's life that warrant their own individual articles, then these can be linked from either or both the "Howard government (yyyy-yyyy)" article and "John Howard as necessary. Eyedubya (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at Talk:Kevin_Rudd. My favoured approach is for the chronological structure to be abandoned for John Howard, now that he is out of office. I would like to see the following sections: (moved to following section) I think the current section "environment and energy" should pretty much be removed. He did little about climate change, and his views on nuclear energy didn't really result in anything. --Surturz (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's getting pretty close. I'd say a section on 'never-ever-GST' would be worthwhile, also a section titled something like 'family matters' concerning attitudes towards family taxation, child support changes, antipathy to gay marriage, to name a few. And there should also be a section on 'Howard's culture wars' - closing down of identity debate, dislike of multiculturalism, anti-'elitism' (i.e. anti academics and intellectuals), and of course - 'A Clayton's Republic' - the referendum you have on a republic when you don't want to have a republic. To the IR section needs to be added the waterfront dispute. That'll do for now. Eyedubya (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe I forgot GST - I've added it to the list. Family matters should mainly consist of baby bonus & FHOG - his opinions on the other issues you mention are not relevant anymore now he is out of office (he can't act on those opinions). Republic referendum actually happened, so that warrants inclusion. I've bundled it up with Indigenous affairs and Multiculturalism under 'Nationhood' - not a great fit, but we don't too many top level headings. --Surturz (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
What's FHOG? On the other matters, while he was in power he acted to prevent states and territories legalising gay marriage, so that warrants inclusion. Eyedubya (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
FHOG = First Home Owners Grant --Matilda talk 00:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know he overruled a territory gay marriage law - that does warrant inclusion. He did that with Euthanasia too, so I have added both under the 'Social policy' heading. --Surturz (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the general outline, but since we will have a Howard Govt article, then the list of issues for inclusion is too long. Remember, ultimately the JH article is meant to be much more succinct and focus on few specific items that were mostly linked with Howard. Ie, not the laundry list of ad-hoc and poorly structured complaints and compliments that we currently have. Ie, the main themes - not everything that a very busy man (and govt) did in 1 years.
Each item should be justified - if in doubt, leave it out. --Merbabu (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to an article on the Howard Government but I note it was of course not just one person. We do have already articles on the ministries - eg First Howard Ministry ... Fourth Howard Ministry . These are currently just lists of the ministers and parliamentary secretaries but there is no reason to my mind that they could not include major events during the term of the ministry. It might be a start if you wanted to include information on policies, achievements, events and incidents.--Matilda talk 00:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed re-structure

John Howard BLP (this article)

  • Biography - born, elected, married etc
  • Treasurer
  • Opposition
    • Rivalry with Andrew Peacock
    • The 1987 election
    • "Lazarus with a triple bypass"
  • Prime Minister
    • MAIN ARTICLE: Howard Government
    • Policy development
    • Relationship with George Bush
    • Leadership and retirement doubts - Costello
    • Decline and fall
  • After politics
  • Honours

Howard Government (working title)

  • Terms
    • each term with start & finish dates, notable events e.g. ministers sacked etc.
  • Social Policy
    • Gun Control
    • Baby bonus
    • First Home owners grant
    • Euthanasia veto
    • Gay marriage veto
  • Economic reform
    • GST
      • Never-ever
    • Industrial Relations - workchoices
  • Nationhood
    • Republic referendum
    • Indigenous affairs - intervention
    • Immigration - Asian immigration comments, Tampa, Children overboard, rhetoric vs. skilled migration increased to record levels
  • Foreign Affairs
    • East Timor
      • Howard's letter
      • InterFET
    • Iraq war
    • US Alliance

The contents however may be a useful starting point:

  1. Overview
  2. Major issues of Presidency
    1. State of the Union Addresses
    2. Major acts as President
    3. Major treaties signed
    4. Major treaties withdrawn
  3. Major legislation
    1. Legislation signed
      1. 2001
      2. 2002 (etc to 2006)
    2. Legislation vetoed
  4. Administration and Cabinet
    1. Advisors and other officials
    2. Supreme Court nominations and appointments
    3. Federal Reserve appointment
  5. First term (2001-2005)
  6. Second term (2005-Present)
  7. Political philosophy
  8. Environmental Record

Obviously a presidency is not the same as leading a government but maybe this sort of topic list would raise it up a little.

There is an article on Premiership of Tony Blair which perhaps is more analogous and I propose Premiership of John Howard as a title. Contents are:

  1. First term 1997 to 2001
    1. Independence for the Bank of England
    2. Domestic politics
    3. Foreign policy
  2. Second term 2001 to 2005
    1. Iraq war
    2. Domestic politics
    3. Health problems
    4. Connaught Square
  3. Third term 2005 to 2007
    1. G8 and EU presidencies
    2. London to host the 2012 Summer Olympics
    3. 2005 London bombings
    4. Education reforms 2006
    5. Local elections on 4 May 2006 and cabinet reshuffle
    6. Darfur
    7. Resignation as Labour Party leader and Prime Minister
    8. Debate over Muslim women wearing veils
    9. Cash for honours
  4. References

I really like this model - can we start discussing at Talk:Premiership of John Howard ? Matilda talk 00:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Definately lots in there, i'm in support of it. However, i'm sure those who like to censor might not be so willing. But at least the "it's not related to JH directly" line gets tossed straight out the window :-) Timeshift (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of “suppressing information”, “censorship” or “denying facts”.
This is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith. Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion. And in the case of biographies of living individuals it is vitally important always to err on the side of caution. If the information you want to add is self-evidently valid and important to the subject, it should be trivial to provide multiple citations from reliable sources which agree that it is both true and significant. Take this evidence to the Talk page in the first instance. Shot info (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Can't wait for the Premiership of John Howard article! Timeshift (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the article split is a long overdue. I've thought for a long time that putting a detailed description of everything the Howard Government did on JH's page is completely inappropriate. After all, he merely led the government that implemented the policies. The proposed article structure(s) look good to me too. I once considered attempting a rewrite along those lines, but the task seemed too daunting. Good on you for taking it on. I hope this gets, shall we say, "bipartisan support".--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! It will certainly be a fairly major undertaking, but I think we've got the people and expertise here to pull it off. Now that I've finally shaken off the horror of intensive study for another semester I'll see what I can develop once I can get to some libraries and get out the books I need. The academic journals are also a ripe source for material. BTW I added policy development under the biographical article as his many speeches to think tanks and policy forums were actually a big part of the way he projected his vision of Australia - a surprising number of them are available as are articles which place the sentiments within them in context, which can be cited as secondary references. Orderinchaos 12:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Go for it, Order! Good to see the exams are done - now there are no more excuses. --Merbabu (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Immigration under Howard

This is an emotive subject, but despite his rhetoric, immigration actually increased to record levels under Howard. I think it only decreased in his first year in office. I think in a restructure, a section on immigration would be an interesting and useful addition. I've added a line in the lead, I can't find any mention of increase to immigration in the main article, although there is a lot which implies Howard was anti-immigration. The truth is that Howard implied he was anti-immigration, but was actually a quiet supporter of high levels of skilled migration. He wasn't so keen on refugees, of course. --Surturz (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you, so I think you could just go ahead and insert a section under that heading right now with this sort of information in it. If you can find some sources that analyse the relationship between his public persona of being apparently anti-immigration while presiding over a dramatic increase that would be good, since its clear that neither were merely coincidental. Eyedubya (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
During Howard's opposition years, he campaigned against immigration happening under the Family Reunion scheme. During Howard's first years in power, from 1996, immigration decreased as Family Reunion was drastically cut. During the later years of Howard's term, immigration increased again, however the increase was due entirely to business/skilled migration. Business groups had been lobbying hard for an increase in Skilled migration. Family reunion was cut, and in 1997 migration from African nations was also reduced.Lester 06:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you need to distinguish between Howard the person and the Howard Government. Itis not clear to me whether these changes were to do with Howard's views or Ruddock's views or another's views or even Cabinet views - no one person. I donot think the article needs to include immigration unless there is a reliable source to link Howard personally to the topic.--Matilda talk 06:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the difficulty is that there has been a very sensible proposal to split this article into a John Howard bio and one about the Howard Government. This hasn't happened yet, and people are working on material for both within the one article. Eyedubya (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Matilda, with respect, race and immigration was a big issue throughout his career. If his comments on Asian immigration and refugees are worthy of inclusion, surely his actions (increasing skilled migration) is also worthy of inclusion? To say he wouldn't have had a significant role in determining immigration levels given his vocal opinions on the subject is a bit unlikely. Comparing his words and actions is not only NPOV, it also makes for interesting narrative. --Surturz (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes I did indeed mean Ruddock - thanks for the fix. Race and immigration have been big issues for Austrlaia throughout the twentieth century and continue now. My concern is to avoid WP:NOR and its subset WP:SYNTH. Comparison of words and actions, particularly givent he volume of sources seems potentially to fall out of bounds of no original research. Any assertions would need to be linked to Howard the person rather than his Government. I think it would be easier to progress this line of thinking against the government article or even if you wnat to be that specific in a history of the DIMIA portfolio. I am not convinced that comments on Asian immigration and refugees are worthy of inclusion but for me it would help a lot if we were working on two different articles and could then separate out the issues. By way of comparison there are some classic instances in US politics where personal actions were against policy pronouncements. For example the Bernard Kerik employment of an illegal nanny and other ethics problems, also the similar (maybe even more clear cut) case of Zoë Baird. In these cases the appointments to government positions did not go ahead because what they did (or allegedly did) did not match the policy positions they were supposed to support - ie thier words and actions were incompatible.--Matilda talk 04:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
        • They're gone now, but I did provide references to articles by Ross Gittins who noticed the discrepancy between Howard's rhetoric and actions on immigration: one and two. It's not my idea or OR. Does this allay your concerns over WP:SYNTH? I can try to look for some non-journalist references I suppose, but while it is easy to establish 1) Howard used anti-immigration rhetoric and 2) Howard raised skilled immigration as facts, I'm not sure how to go about justifying (or debunking) that the two facts should be linked in the article. Mentioning both and leaving it to the reader to draw conclusions is probably the way. --Surturz (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Gittins uses Howard in this case in the sense other people at other times use Canberra - this is why I think it is important to put in an article on the Howard Government but not in Howard's biography. Although Gittins refers to Howard consistently he doesn't mention Ruddock or Vanstone or their colleagues - it wasn't a one man band. Can I suggest a good place to place some of this info is Immigration history of Australia which really needs some updating.--Matilda talk 05:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Immigration in lead

While I'm sure it's true are immigration levels something that can contribute towards the summation of the person or the Prime Ministership? Something in the lead should not require references to back it up as a fact, it should be already a well established fact taken from the fully referenced body of the article. WikiTownsvillian 13:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both your points: ie, that it seems out of place, and further, it should be referenced in the main article thus making references in the lead redundant. --Merbabu (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think something of his "achievements" should be in the lead, but not gun control. Immigration is only really a biggie because it was such a factor in 2001. I'd say the things which belong in the lead are (in no particular order) these five: GST, industrial relations, getting the budget into surplus, exploitation of Tampa in 2001, and the Iraq war. Peter Ballard (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to inflame things, but the body of the article makes a strong case that he was anti-immigration. Now he certainly was in rhetoric but in fact he increased immigration to record levels. Trying to remove objective fact from the lead smacks of POV-pushing. i.e. I am starting to become suspicious that the lefty editors on this article are trying to portray JH as a racist, which he most certainly was not. RECORD LEVELS of immigration... how can it NOT be in the lead?? --Surturz (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
There were lots of records during Howard's term as prime minister: record spending, record employment, record house prices (and housing unafforability), record executive salaries... what goes in the lead and what doesn't? We've got to look at significance. Apart from the Tampa/Refugees issue, immigration adjustments didn't generate huge news or controversy big enough to be in the half a dozen or so things we can mention in the lead. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
To say that Australian society has not changed massively due to immigration is completely disingenuous. I certainly hope you are not saying that controversy is the criterion for inclusion. Surely facts are more important than rhetoric? Aren't we interested in what Howard did in addition to what he said? --Surturz (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course Australia has changed due to immigration. What I dispute is that there was a seachange under Howard, apart from being meaner/tougher (depending on your POV) to refugees. Yes, controversy is part of the reason for inclusion, because controversy affects newsworthiness. But if you can find substantial references discussing how significant skilled migration was under Howard, I might change my mind. Right now, I'm guessing that when people (including experts) think of immigration under Howard, they think of Tampa and the Pacific solution; and that other immigration under Howard largely followed previous trends and barely deserves a mention, certainly not in the lead. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, we can be clearer about this issue if we don't assume political leanings or biases. For example, opposition to immigration is not an issue that is owned by the 'right', nor is racism confined to the left. Things are way more complicated than that. For example, if a PM knows that many constituents are indeed racists, or perhaps, just fearful of their livelihoods being taken away, but understands that from an economic perspective immigration must be sustained at relatively high levels, what can he do? He has political tools to manage it that may play to the fact that people tend to react more strongly to symbolism rather than demographic data. It seems that this is one interpretation of what Howard did. Empirically, we know he came across as anti-immigration. Equally so, we have the evidence that immigration dramatically increased during his term of office. Furthermore, we have evidence that Howard based much of his rhetoric on a concern for the values of 'ordinary Australians' (aka 'battlers'), while at the same time, he presided over a series of measures that actually made the lives of that constituency significantly less secure due to increases in house prices, lack of planning for less-car dependent cities, less secure IR, inflation, etc - as well as a rhetoric about terrorism and border security designed to instill insecurity. But these are not 'left' or 'right' issues - Labour in the UK did many of the same things. And in the 1990s, the ALP was doing the same as Thatcher in the UK. What's interesting and notable is the combination of political themes/discourse/rhetoric and actual demographic and other outcomes - both are necessary to understand Howard's term in office, neither is sufficient. Eyedubya (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The article also seems to offer no mention of Temporary Protection Visas (TPV) for refugees, or the riots at Immigration Detention Centres or the reduction in refugee intake, and no mention of SIEV-X (except, curiously, in the references). Open up the immigration can of worms and there is are quite a lot of worms in it. Lester 04:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You are free to add these to the main article if you deem them notable; I'm certainly not trying to hide any worms. However, we are talking here about the lead. It seems to me that given how much of a theme immigration was in Howard's ENTIRE career, it would be a shame not to see some mention of it in the lead. Note that not everyone thinks increasing immigration is a good thing, so saying he increased immigration is factual and NPOV. I have already watered it down to "increased immigration" - no mention of 'record immigration' - but we could water it down further to "changed immigration laws" or some equally milquetoast phrase if people strongly object. I agree with Eyedubya that the comparison of Howard's rhetoric and actions on immigration is vital. --Surturz (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the Howard government's immigration policy was driven entirely by Mr Howard himself, so I'm not sure there is a separation between the person and the policy. Lester 06:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we have found the key point of difference and what I would like to see are some reliable sources which supports your assertion that the Howard government's immigration policy was driven entirely by Mr Howard himself. Cites such as those provded by Surturz where Gittins says Howard this and Howard that do not satisfy me because they are in my view in the same vein as Canberra this or Canberra that - there must be a word for that sort of generalisation but I am not sure what it is. I don't have any Howard biographies ... but I am sure that if it is so you should be able to come up with several absolutely reliable cites which do Ruddock and other DIMIA ministers a great disservice :-) --Matilda talk 06:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
A word for that sort of generalization - Metonymy is or may be the word you are seeking here. Metonymy refers to the use of a single characteristic to identify a more complex entity and... --NewbyG (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I can see your point in terms of a split of this article into two articles (see my changes to the suggest structure above). However, I still think if we quote his views on immigration we must also explain that skilled immigration increased during his tenure. Whether or not he was the driving force, he certainly allowed immigration to increase while he was PM. I'm not going to quibble with words, the thrust is that 1) we quote choice parts of his anti-immigration rhetoric (the asian immigration quote, and the 'circumstances under which they come' quote I suggest) 2) We include a line saying that skilled immigration increased during his government. Whether we link the two and whether it was him that increased immigration or his govt that increased it are minor points IMHO. --Surturz (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a satisfactory compromise, "increased immigration" was simply not a theme of the Howard Government and if it was then there would be a significant amount written about it in this article and elsewhere. This has nothing to do with left or right agendas, the lead has to be a reflection of the article as a whole. Immigration increases is not a defining legacy of the Howard Government, I would even argue gun control is borderline it was significant at the time however it was reactionary and in the context of a national tragedy, whereas the areas that Peter mentions above were long term reforms which were high profile both in public interest and in the Government's promotion. WikiTownsvillian 03:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • On what basis do you assert "increased immigration" was simply not a theme of the Howard Government. Actual immigration numbers are indeed a defining legacy - there were more immigrants than ever before under that Government. See for example [1] and [2] (previously linked to above). Read in particular the first article and considet the facts against any perception you may have of the Howard Government's rhetoric. --Matilda talk 04:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Look, I'm pretty much happy as long as the word 'immigration' appears in the lead. Even something like "Immigration was an important issue while Howard was in government" or something vague like that. My point is that Immigration was an important theme during his whole career, and the topic deserves inclusion in the lead. --Surturz (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I find it unsatisfactory that this sentence about immigration, industrial relations etc is still in the lead. It's POV for the reason that I've stated before, that there are always 2 sides to any policy issue, as all policy issues are both positive and negative, we need to show both, and the lead is too short to do it. An example is to say he "achieved industrial relations reform", but the other side of the coin is that the waterfront dispute was one of the most controversial industrial relations episodes in Australia's history. To simply sum it up by saying that he achieved reform is POV in that context when we don't provide the other side of the coin. The whole sentence should go. We should have more detailed industrial relations and immigration in the body of the article. OK? --Lester 04:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I said earlier that something of his main policy issues should be in the lead, but now there's been a split I think that belongs in the Howard government article. So cut it from the lead of this article (where it definitely doesn't belong), and then we can all argue about what goes in the lead of the Howard government article :) Peter Ballard (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Propose deleting immigration sentence

I propose deleting the sentence from the opening that says: "Howard oversaw taxation reform by introducing a Goods and Services Tax, implemented significant gun control, increased immigration and brought in wide ranging industrial relations reforms throughout his 11 years as Prime Minister." The deletion should happen in the next 48 hours, as I don't believe sufficient justification has been provided for its continued inclusion. The subjects covered are too complex to be in point form. In the case of the immigration point, I believe it is actually factually wrong on two counts: That the peak of immigration under Howard was lower than has occurred in past times, and the total number of immigrants to arrive during the Howard government era was not higher than in decades past.--Lester 02:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree for reasons previously cited. Immigration was a big issue for Howard during his whole career and it deserves a mention in the lead --Surturz (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Refugees were a big issue (at least from 2001 onwards), immigration in general was not. Can you produce a reference which says otherwise? Peter Ballard (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
p.s. here's a reference supporting my claim http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/24/2098414.htm - a timeline of Howard. Immigration only gets a mention in the context of Tampa, children overboard and mandatory detention. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Asian immigration comments, 1988 [3] plus controversy around 1997 wrt Pauline Hanson, and more recently refugee stuff Tampa etc. So it has been a big issue for Howard in at least the last twenty years. Not to mention the influx of immigrants in his electorate contributed to his unseating. Definitely worth a mention. --Surturz (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. - I also believe he was part of the government that got rid of the White Australia Policy, although I have no idea of how big a role he played in that, if any.
But where's the article which says words to the effect "increased immigration was a feature of Howard's term as PM"? Maybe acceptable would be something like "controversy over immigration was feature of Howard's term as PM", though I'd still prefer it to refer more specifically to refugees and/or mandatory detention. The White Australia Policy - nope, all removed before Howard was a part of government. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The specific events that user:Surturz mentions are all valid for inclusion in the article: 1988 anti-Asian stance, Pauline Hanson controversy, Tampa, Bennelong electorate demographics etc etc. In fact, I should add some of these to the long list below. The first link Surturz listed provides details of Howard's famous "attack" on Asians in 1988 ("attack" is the word Surturz's reference uses). Like user:Peter Ballard, I think the immigration issue would only work in the intro if it included the controversial aspects as well. However, the present sentence that mentions immigration should be deleted from the intro within 24 hours, due to its incompleteness (doesn't summarise the story) and inaccuracy, which I detailed at the start of this section. --Lester 00:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 2 different views - per the discussions below
    • I maintain immigration was significant and suggest: Paul Sheehan (journalist) a notable commentator observed in relation to immigration has to count as a significant political achievement for John Howard. In the source User:Peter Ballard provided http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/24/2098414.htm Howard was quoted as saying (at the time of the Tampa affair "We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances under which they come." - I believe this quote references beyond Tampa to immigration policy - the Howard Government's policy was a success - it was notable in historic terms when compared with other times of immigration influx on the numbers
    • Peter Ballard maintains: Refugees and mandatory detention were notable and controverisal aspects of immigration under Howard, other aspects of immigration were not. ""We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances under which they come." - its called an immigration policy" - you can not be serious. That quote was to bolster his anti-refugee rhetoric and was not about the rest of immigration policy. If you want to say in the lead something like, "immigration was a controversial issue", then fine, but to simply say he presided over "increased immigration" is a whitewash (no pun intended). Peter Ballard (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Surturz had noted below- I am genuinely puzzled as to how you arrive at the conclusion that immigration was not a significant issue in JH's career. Some of his most memorable quotes are to do with immigration. Some of his most memorable policies are to do with immigration. Members of his own party crossed the floor (or threatened to) on immigration/multiculturalism/refugee/ethnic issues. How can it not be in the lead? --Surturz (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
placed this here to summarise the rather lengthy discussion below as the thread was otherwise too hard to follow.
We have so far then Lester and Peter Ballard suggesting removal and Surturz and myself suggesting the comment not be removed--Matilda talk 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

break inserted 01:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC) into immigration thread to allow refocussing on question

  • Because I have had too lengthy responses (below I have inserted breaks so that they can be seen but allow the conversation to occur above as the thread is becoming perhaps too hard to follow.--Matilda talk 01:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
immigration was important, I would prefer it wasn't deleted - I am happy for rewording which expands on the theme but it needs to consist of NOR. The article which says "increased immigration was a feature of Howard's term as PM" is the last sentence of Immigration to Australia#History and also the sub section Immigration history of Australia#Actual immigration patterns under the Howard Government 1996-2007 which is referenced. That section could do with expansion to put it into historical context - ie I think that immigration during the gold rushes was more significant in terms of population change but the rate of change context is missing even for the latter 1/2 of the 20th century. How does the rate compare with post ww2 for example ... ? This link is helpful: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/federation/timeline1.pdf early 20th century - Between 1905 and the outbreak of World War One, ~ 390,000 new settlers arrived & population rose from 4 to almost 5 million - that is 390k over 8-9 years - smaller nos than per annum rate now but bigger impact on the base population numbers. In 1949 "Assisted arrivals reached more than 118,800," and in 1950 "Net Overseas Migration reached a record high of 153,685, the third highest figure of the century, only surpassed in 1919 (166,303) with troops returning from World War One and in 1988 (172,794)." I think (without having time right now to do further research) 100,000 immigrants a year each and every year n recent years is significant event hough it is against a large population base.--Matilda talk 02:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
* I don't think you should delete, I would much prefer alternate text to be included. There seems to be general consensus for the immigration issue to be included in the lead. As I have said elsewhere, I don't really care a whole heap about the exact wording as long as immigration appears in the lead. If you don't like 'increased immigration', how about "made significant changes to immigration" or "During a large part of his career, Howard made significant contributions to the debate about immigration and ethnic relations within Australia". Also, just heading off one thing I would take issue with, I would be critical of any mention of "refugees" in the lead, because one person's "refugee" is another's "illegal alien". I have no problem with the term in the article body though. --Surturz (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
We need to steer clear of WP:OR folks. I've provided a reference showing that, according to one commentator, refugees and mandatory detention was a key feature of Howard's time as PM. But no one has produced one saying that immigration in general was a feature. So either produce such a reference, or change it to only reflect the controversial aspects (i.e. refugees / mandatory detention). Peter Ballard (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I am getting rather irritated that you apparently failed to read my comment(s) above. I pointed you to other wikipedia articles on the topic, in particular Immigration history of Australia#Actual immigration patterns under the Howard Government 1996-2007 which is referenced with

Gittins, Ross (13 June 2007). "Back-scratching at a national level". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2008-06-04.

This is not OR and moreover this Gittins reference has been produced several times in the course of this discussion. --Matilda talk 03:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I did read it. Lots about immigration. Nothing about where immigration sits if you rank the biggest issues of the Howard government. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

lengthy response on significance of immigration

reduce indentI cannot see the rationale for excluding it as a topic when in fact the high levels were more significant than the skirmishes around some boat people. What you seem to be confusing here is newsworthy headlines compared to the ongoing and quiet business of government. 100,000+ people arrived each year quietly. Those arrivals propped up the economy, contributed to a rise in house prices, ... all sorts of implications but because it was like boiling a frog starting from cold water, nobody noticed.

Another source is http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2006/02/meagher_wilson.html : -

Assessing immigration policy and attitudes is particularly complex. Prime Minister Howard has fostered an inward-looking nationalism, which we might expect to be reflected in a smaller immigration program and strong anti-immigration sentiment. Certainly, several Howard ministers and the Prime Minister himself manipulated perceptions of the ‘children overboard’ and Tampa incidents, thereby blurring distinctions between refugees, terrorists and Muslims to their electoral advantage (Marr & Wilkinson 2003; Weller 2002).
Yet the Howard Government has not been consistently ‘anti-immigration’ (see Gittins 2003). On the contrary, immigration has increased under Howard: total settler arrivals in 2003–04 were 60 per cent higher than they were a decade before (Commonwealth of Australia 2004, p. 9). What has changed is the balance between different kinds of immigrants. The program now emphasises business’s interest in attracting more skilled labour, as opposed to unpopular family reunion component of the program (see, for example, Business Council of Australia 1999).
How has the public responded to immigration under Howard? Focusing on one headline measure, public support for immigration is higher than it has been for a generation (AES 1990–2004; Goot & Watson 2005, pp. 183–185). But does this represent agreement with Howard’s policy changes or a rejection of conservative anti-immigration politics? The answer is likely to be a mix of factors in criss-crossing directions. The stronger economy has undermined one traditional source of hostility to migration: a lack of jobs for Australian-born workers. Howard’s high profile in the immigration and refugee debates may have instilled greater confidence among conservative Australians in the immigration mix. But other Australians probably now feel uncomfortable with anti-immigration politics, coming to see that immigrants are good for the Australian economy and society. There is, moreover, little evidence to support the proposition that Australians are willingly turning their back on multiculturalism (Goot & Watson 2005, p. 184), even though the Prime Minister himself has explicitly criticised it.
What the immigration policy illustrates is the complex relation between public policy and public opinion ...

This is one of three issues tackled in this article. There are a couple of other articles I can find dealing with the Howard Government and immigration but they are viewable through subscription services and I won't quote them here. This article http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/citizen/2007/0128australiacitiz.htm originally from the International Herald Tribune is interesting on the apparent move of the Howard government away from British-style multiculturalism toward French-style integration and the whole citizenship debate including the sitting of a test - needs to be captured somewhere in the Howard Government article.
This article from 1997 http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv5n2/kerr.htm is an interesting perspective when immigration was being tightened under Howard which confirms Gittens starting point: the Prime Minister chose to announce the Government’s decision by going on John Laws’ program where he spoke of ‘slashing’ the immigration program, and the Deputy Prime Minister spoke of the previous Labor Government as having allowed the program to ‘go out of control’. The end position was very different from the bluster of the beginning.
This SMH article by Paul Sheehan http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/little-squares-that-define-the-nation/2006/01/01/1136050344123.html states

AUSTRALIA accepted 87,000 immigrants in 1994-95, the last financial year before the Howard Government was elected. Immigration was also a hot topic. The electorate was restive and this restiveness would translate into political disaster for the Keating government, in part because it played the race card so stupidly and handled immigration so badly.
Move forward 10 years. Last financial year, 2004-05, Australia accepted 123,000 new settlers. "Yes, that's a 40 per cent increase over the past 10 years," confirmed Senator Amanda Vanstone, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, ...
So the Howard Government has increased the immigration intake by 40 per cent, with a 10 per cent jump in the past year, it has admitted more Asian immigrants than any previous government, and more Muslim immigrants than any previous government, and more Muslim refugees - and yet legal immigration is not a hot topic, and immigration is a winning issue for the government. This has to count as a significant political achievement for John Howard.
It's also going to keep housing prices high in Sydney because, as usual, the largest number of immigrants move to Sydney. Forty thousand last year. The majority came from Asia, led by China and India. Add the growth in student numbers from Asia, and the continued high numbers of tourists from Asia, and Sydney has become a city integrated into the East Asian region.

Sheehan's article leads with Australian society is moving from a multicultural to a mobile one but I think immigration is the issue rather than multiculturalism which is specific by product of immigration policies that increase the numbers so significantly.
In 2005 the BBC reported http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4204915.stm

Immigration is clearly seen by the authorities as an important economic tool.
"We've shifted very much to a skilled migration intake", said Australia's Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone, "bringing in people who are under 45, are qualified..and contribute to the Australian economy."
Immigration has been a dominant factor in Australian life for more than half a century.
In that time the population has more than doubled. A quarter of all adult Australians were born overseas and everyone else - apart from aborigines - is related to an immigrant somewhere down the line.
Gerard Henderson from the Sydney Institute told BBC News that the Howard government had done a good job managing immigration but warned that the system may be too rigid.
"Australia demands very high standards of its migrants," he said, "but perhaps they are too high."
Mr Henderson, a former adviser to the prime minister, believes that there's scope for allowing less educated and lower income earners into Australia, especially after unemployment recently hit a 30-year low.
Family reunions are the other major component of the immigration quota.
Applicants can apply to join relatives or partners who are either Australian citizens or permanent residents.
Critics have said the erosion of this part of the annual intake of migrants in favour of more skilled workers had caused a "huge degree of heartache" for many people.
Ian Rintoul, a spokesman for the Refugee Action Coalition, said that Australia needed to urgently re-assess its immigration policies.
"We could look at a structure which is based upon humanitarian concerns," he insisted, "If we had one that is not based upon the preferred socio-economic profile of the government, we'd have a far better situation."
In Britain, Michael Howard's plans for immigration have proved controversial. In Australia, John Howard has no such worries. Tough talk on asylum seekers has been a vote winner in the past.
Opposition to increased levels of immigration has been muted - for that, veteran conservative Mr Howard can - in part - thank a booming economy. In times of austerity, migrants often bear the brunt of the community's fears and frustrations.
This is, however, an age of prosperity for Australia and - for the majority of people here - immigration is not a pressing social or political concern.

I had really better finish here - sorry for rambling on. Your argument will continue to be there is no source saying it was a significant achievement for the Howard Government. My argument in return is that despite significant increases in immigration during the Government's incumbency - Paul Sheehan observed and yet legal immigration is not a hot topic, and immigration is a winning issue for the government. This has to count as a significant political achievement for John Howard --Matilda talk 07:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing there to indicate that increased immigration, or a vague "changes in immigration policy", belongs in the lead. Remember the lead only has room for a handful of topics. Where's the source saying immigration is one of the top distinctive features of the Howard government? Your quotes pretty well confirm what I've been saying - changes have been routine and uncontroversial. Remember I'm not saying it doesn't belong in the article (though what you're talking about belongs better in Howard Government), just that it's not significant enough to go in the lead. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I am genuinely puzzled as to how you arrive at the conclusion that immigration was not a significant issue in JH's career. Some of his most memorable quotes are to do with immigration. Some of his most memorable policies are to do with immigration. Members of his own party crossed the floor (or threatened to) on immigration/multiculturalism/refugee/ethnic issues. How can it not be in the lead? --Surturz (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
as above Paul Sheehan (journalist) a notable commentator observed in relation to immigration has to count as a significant political achievement for John Howard. In the source User:Peter Ballard provided http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/24/2098414.htm Howard was quoted as saying (at the time of the Tampa affair "We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances under which they come." - its called an immigration policy - he had one - it was a success - it was notable in historic terms when compared with other times of immigration influx.--Matilda talk 23:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
How many times do I have to say it? Refugees and mandatory detention were notable and controverisal aspects of immigration under Howard, other aspects of immigration were not. ""We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances under which they come." - its called an immigration policy" - you can not be serious. That quote was to bolster his anti-refugee rhetoric and was not about the rest of immigration policy. If you want to say in the lead something like, "immigration was a controversial issue", then fine, but to simply say he presided over "increased immigration" is a whitewash (no pun intended). Peter Ballard (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Immigration and employment conditions

Someone more engaged than I can probably quickly produce a reference to illustrate the issues that arose in relation to Howard's support for high levels of skilled immigration related to the lack of planning for skills development within Australia's education system, and of course, the abuse of workers on certain forms of work-related visas. Eyedubya (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

At last, some refreshingly NPOV discussion! --Surturz (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I assume User:Surturz is being sarcastic. However, it illustrates that immigration was an issue during Howard's term of office, that's all. Perhaps User:Surturz can add some other dimensions that demonstrate that Howard himself was a promoter of the actual immigration policies he presided over? Eyedubya (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to draw the connection find a reference otherwise it looks to me like WP:OR or WP:SYNTH--Matilda talk 00:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag Removal

N.B. There is previous discussion on this topic at /Archive 11 --Surturz (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could those editors that believe that the POV tag should remain please list here their criteria for removal of the tag? --Surturz (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why the fuss about the tag? The article has much bigger issues, structural issues. Better to sort those out and then worry about the tag if it persists once the article has been restructured. Eyedubya (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is ugly and a nuisance. Further, no specific justification for its use, nor specific and workable suggestions for improvement have been provided despite several requests over a few weeks.--Merbabu (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The article suffers serious problems with edit warring and emphasis in all the wrong places, but it's not actually POV. I say remove the tag. Peter Ballard (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:SILENCE I will be removing the POV tag in the next few days unless an editor justifies its inclusion. For a second time, I ask for editors of this article to supply criteria for removal of the POV tag. --Surturz (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is riddled with bias by omission. As Eyedubya stated earlier, the article needs much work. There has been a push to make Howard's image appear very positive in this article, with some editors applying different criteria for the inclusion of information that enhances Howard's image to information that makes him appear less positive. The most recent example is the Barack Obama section, where a sentence that praises Howard as a "Man of Steel" is included, whereas the Obama quote that criticised Howard's Iraq policy is omitted. The question as to whether this is bias, or sensible removal of trivial information, can be answered by whether we apply the same criteria demanded for the negative information as the positive information. For example, are we going to go through the article and remove positive information as being "non-notable" if it doesn't have any recent 2008 mentions in the press? This is the criteria that was applied to the Obama quote, so why not apply that to everything? Another recent example of bias by omission is the information about Howard's achievements in the intro, which was added in the midst of the Obama edit war: "Howard oversaw taxation reform by introducing a Goods and Services Tax, implemented significant gun control, increased immigration and brought in wide ranging industrial relations reforms throughout his 11 years as Prime Minister." While broadly factual, it fails to indicate the light and shade with each one of those points, all of which were controversial at the time. I think this should apply to all political articles, that when we talk about any political policy, some will think it's great, whilst others think it's terrible. Most especially for economic "achievements". Both viewpoints need brief inclusion. Same applies to the other side of politics, eg Kevin Rudd. While we still enter into edit wars to prevent new information from being added, or even properly debated by the editing community, then the article will continue to have a POV problem. Lester 03:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Lester, the sentence in the lead doesn't say anything about whether the measures he brought in were good or bad. The lead should be a summary, and the sentence you refer to seems NPOV to me, I honestly can't see the bias. We can substitute the word 'reform' with 'change' if you think 'reform' is a POV word. What would be most helpful would be a bullet-point list of items you want included or excluded, that if resolved would cause you to agree to remove the POV tag. Can you provide such a list? --Surturz (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Also I think for a BLP on a politician, we don't really need to provide both sides of the argument on political issues. We only really need to include the subject's opinion. In fact, I'd prefer to remove most opinions from the article and concentrate on factual events. What people do while they are in office is more important than what they say. --Surturz (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with that PS. If you want a BLP to only have the subject's opinion on him/herself, read their autobiography, not Wikipedia.
Regarding the lead, I just think immigration per se (and gun control) aren't significant enough for the lead. I've listed above my nominated 5 things to put in the lead. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The trouble with politics is that 'factual events' are always political. For example, its a fact that John Howard said children were thrown overboard. Its a fact that no children were thrown overboard. Its a fact that John Howard said there were WMD in Iraq. Its a fact that there were no WMD found in Iraq. Which 'factual events' will suffice? In such cases as these, both sets of facts must be included to make any sense at all of the facts. If John Howard had said 'no children were thrown overboard', and this was consistent with the facts, then the article would only need John Howard's statements. But what Howard did was to state one thing in the face of the facts. So its not always true that what people do in office is more important than what they say, because much of what politicians do when in office consists of saying things that do things. Eyedubya (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) According with WP:SILENCE I intend to remove the POV tag in the next few days if there are no specific complaints about POV in the article. Please add a one line description of any POV issues you want fixed in the next section. If we only have the Obama issue, I don't think that is enough to justify keeping the POV tag. Many thanks, Surturz (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

List of specific POV Issues that need to be resolved (dot points only please, place comments above)

Please append here a one line summary of each POV issue you want fixed.

  • Man of Steel and Pray for Obama win quotes
  • Intro - Howard's achievements, eg Immigration/gun control/industrial relations
  • Howard family's extensive New Guinea interests (which has been deleted)
  • Howard's use of too much alcohol during his depressed period after losing to Peacock in the 1980s.

Edit Armistice

I have put in Obama compromise version #8, removed the "Man of Steel" quote and also removed the POV tag. I think I have consensus for this, based on all the talk on this page and its archives. --Surturz (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I never requested the quote praising Howard as the "Man of Steel" be removed (I think it should be in the article), nor am I asking for any praise about Howard to be removed. It was a fact that Bush praised Howard, which can't be disputed. More disputable is the text you added to the intro about Howard's achievements eg: "significant gun control, increased immigration, wide ranging industrial relations reform." We discussed that before, a bit further up this very thread, and those 3 points have counterpoint which was not included. Obama's criticism of Howard is still not in the article, and I notice you state you have consensus for the current version (which omits the Obama criticism) but an "armistice" (your word) does not replace the Wikipedia content resolution process that would have been. --Lester 01:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The Obama ref can be found at John Howard#Relationship with George Bush--Matilda talk 01:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matilda, I acknowledge that all the Obama information is contained in the references, including Obama's criticism of Howard's Iraq policy. I don't think it's existence in the reference is a substitute for it being in the article text, where I think the Obama's reply should go. We should retain Bush's praise of Howard, and also retain Obama's criticism. Regards, --Lester 03:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The text is that as agreed at Talk:John Howard/Archive 12#Compromise (or lack thereof) #8--Matilda talk 05:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not an agreement. The repeated deletion of Obama's criticism of Howard's Iraq policy was took place during an edit war, and the discussion took place at the same time as the majority of editors were attempting a Request for Mediation. Look at the list of people on that RfM who didn't get any say in this outcome. I bring it up in response to suggestions (above) that it was achieved by finding consensus. --Lester 04:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I note for general interest that South Australian Premier & President of the ALP National Executive Mike Rann mentioned the Howard Obama-terrorism comment in an address to the National Press Club at 12:30pm Wednesday, 11 Jun 2008 (no online transcript, alas). --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Racism in Australia Tag

The following selection is taken from my talk page:

Hi Rakkar, I just removed the "Racism in Australia" category from the John Howard article, which you have added twice now. That article is a BLP, and including the category implies he is racist. Please leave the category out of the article. --Surturz (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I didn't say he was racist. I included him in a category about racism, as over his years in parliament, he had a lot to say on issues on race and immigration. It could be added to a wide rage of articles without implying that the subject racist, for instance it could apply to anti-racist groups. That is my justification for adding it, what do people think? --rakkar (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

end of copied content

I think it's a silly catgeory to have. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I can understand why some may baulk at this proposal, but I think it has merit. Anyone researching the topic of racism in Australia would do well to cover certain incidents that have widely been reported as examples of Racism where John Howard has intervened to claim the reverse, such as Pauline Hanson's maiden speech, or the 2005 Cronulla riots. Or where Howard has had to defend himself against charges of racism, such as his remarks about levels of Asian Immigration, his rhetoric about the 10-Point Plan, or the Northern Territory Intervention, the latter requiring the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. In a multi-racial, multi-cultural country such as Australia, high-profile politicians are inevitably going to be faced with issues related to racism and how they handle it impacts on the ways those issues play out. The tag doesn't state or imply that Howard is a racist, but one would have to be blind to not see that Howard is deeply implicated in the politics of race in Australia, and that his views and policies have been regarded by some as either racist, or giving succour to racists. The NPOV line here is to allow people searching for pages that are related to the category of 'Racism in Australia' to see this page so that they can form their own views, not to be so protective of Howard's reputation to make WP difficult to use by burying relevant articles. Eyedubya (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In that case, you need to put the tag on the article of just about every major Australian politician. That's why it's a silly tag. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec - again)Not at all. THat's not what categories are for. Sorry, but the implication is very strong indeed that the intent is that Howard is a racist. --Merbabu (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah and don't forget the tags for "workers' rights in Australia", "environmentalism in Australia", "gun control in Australia", "immigration in Australia", "taxation in Australia", "land rights in Australia", "elections in Australia", "repblicanism in Australia" etc etc etc. Any category like this is silly, and so vague to define that it goes against the purpose of categories. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Rather than speculating, why not suck it and see? Only certain high profile pollies will really deserve tags such as these, and it'd be good to see how things shape up. And to respond to Merbabu - its not that anyone here may intend that Howard is a racist, its more to the point that many have claimed that he is, or some of his policies were racist, and that in itself warrants a tag. Its not up to editors on WP to decide whether or not someone is or is not a racist, much as it may tarnish the image of a figure whom we admire, or not as the case may be. All we can do is present information that's reliable and verifiable for others to draw their own conclusions from. Eyedubya (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Categories are little bits of text that are situated at the end of an article. They don't affect the readability, or the length, of an article to any great degree. Their great advantage is linking concepts together across wikipedia.--rakkar (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Anyone read this book? Is 'Racism in Australia' the only tag like that could be used, or are there similar tags, like maybe 'Race issues in Australia' or something like that? Malcolm Fraser was responsible for allowing more Asian people to come here than any other prime ministers, but you wouldn't call that racism. Then again, Howard did make those statements in 1988 about reducing Asian immigration. Lester 09:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories are for something specific, tangible, neutral, verifiable, and unarguable. A "Racism in Australia" category here would be clearly the opposite - general, vague, bias, unverifiable, and highly contentious. Thus, I'm surprised Eyedubya seems to be supporting it. --Merbabu (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

PS, as for the justification that he's been called a racist, why not put him (and other prominent leaders) under the category "War Crimininals". He has been called a war criminal afterall. --Merbabu (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A read of Wikipedia:Categorization makes it pretty plain, in my opinion, that "Racism in Australia" is not a suitable topic for a WP category. In particular point 7 ("Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article"), and point 9 ("Generally, the relationship between an article and its categories should be definable as "(Article) is (category)": John Goodman is an American actor, Copenhagen is a city in Denmark, Jane Austen is an English writer, etc. Do not apply categories whose relationship to the topic is definable only as "(Article) is a subject related to (category)"). Peter Ballard (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not tolerate the tag under any circumstances and will do everything I can to prevent it being attached to this article. It is obviously libellous and I find it very disappointing that (left wing but) otherwise sensible editors of this article are even contemplating it. If you want to attach a category to highlight Howard's comments on ethnic issues, then something like "Multiculturalism in Australia" would be an acceptable compromise. --Surturz (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

But Surturz, we don't have Multiculturalism in Australia anymore, Howard got rid of it![4] Jokes aside, would anyone object to "Multiculturalism in Australia"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakkar (talk • contribs) 11:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I object to it, but I will tolerate it if there is consensus for its inclusion. I think categories such as those should contain articles on events, acts of parliament etc, not people. JH was Prime Minister of the country and his article could be tagged with almost any political subject. --Surturz (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I won't agree to a Multiculturalism tag for the same reason I won't to a Racism tag: ie, rather than the required specific, tangible, neutral, verifiable, and unarguable, it is general, vague, bias, unverifiable, and highly contentious.
I agree with Peter Ballard's explanation of category use. ie, John Howard is a racist/multiculturalist just doesn't work. --Merbabu (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Quote from user:Surturz: "left wing but otherwise sensible editors". That's amusing  :) --Lester 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I object to "Multiculturalism in Australia" for the same reason I object to "Racism in Australia" above at 10:50 - it is a misuse of categories as outlined in Wikipedia:Categorization. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of racism specific tags for a Bio and in particular WP:BLP require a significant reason to include them such as someone like Jack van Tongeren, otherwise their inclusion is against WP:NPOV. The category is valid in terms of Jack, and Cronulla riots, to some extent Pauline and the One Nation Party do fall with in a broader definition. WP:OC#OPINION says Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions...however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic Gnangarra 12:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If the WP policy test for categories is to insert 'is' between the article and the category to see if they make sense, then clearly, it makes no sense to categorise John Howard's BLP under 'Multiculturalism in Australia' IF you read this as necessarily meaning 'John Howard IS a multiculturalist'. John Howard himself has said he is not a multiculturalist, and his actions certainly (for once) show his words to have some correspondence to reality. But the category proposed is not 'Multiculturalists in Australia', it is about the issue of multiculturalism in Australia, and as a category distinguishes articles coming within its purview from such categories as 'Multiculturalism in Canada' or 'Multiculturalism in Singapore'. It also distinguishes a set of articles from other sets of articles on topics such as 'Assimilationism in Australia', 'Nationalism in Australia', 'Federalism in Australia', 'Ethnic relations in Australia', 'National Identity in Australia', etc. though because the topics are related, there will be many articles in common between such sets. And the same would be true for the set of articles under the category 'Racism in Australia'. Under this rubric, the link between the category and the article is of the form 'Topic' IS of significant relevance to 'Article'. In John Howard's case, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist is a good test. We might look for any number of instances of his opinions about race, racism and race relations in Australia and then look at what he actually has done (as perhaps the most powerful 'activist' in the country) in relation to these opinions. In doing so, we would also be looking for reliable, verifiable sources in relation to documentation and commentary about the significance of the relationship between Howard's words, actions and issues of race, racism and race relations in Australia. As has been shown above precisely these issue have been the subject of whole books. Others could no doubt be cited. So the evidence is there. But I hear the sound of drums and the chant 'those are all biased! No-one with a Neutral Point of View would write books like that!' - so, indeed, the only way to make such entries NPOV is for editors to seek out the alternative evidence from similarly reliable, verifiable sources to set alongside the other claims. Methinks those who are so against a tag of this kind (and I'm not proposing it has to be 'Racism in Australia' - others will do, such as 'Race relations in Australia' or 'Multiculturalism in Australia') protest too much: The issue is not whether or not John Howard IS or IS NOT a racist - we have no way of knowing what is in his heart, and to re-iterate, its not the place of WP editors to decide what is or is not in anyone's heart. All we can do is document what has been said, written and enacted in relation to the subjects about which we write. Eyedubya (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Categorization: Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article --Merbabu (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I think we need to avoid categories that don't help us here. Every politician could probably be placed in a dozen categories based on professed stances if we went this route. We could even have one on politicians who boycotted the apology to the Stolen Generations. Orderinchaos 04:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I think there's a problem in calling him racist - he was nationalist, and fiercely so, and certainly tapped into a strongly nationalist sentiment which had some racist overtones. But to be racist means to consider other races inferior, rather than simply to believe they don't belong in Australia. I didn't see a huge amount of evidence to suggest he was actually racist in that sense. (I'm not by any means defending him - I am of the strong opinion that nationalism is a great evil - but if we're going to be critical, let's get our terminology right...) Orderinchaos 05:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know what it means to think that other races 'don't belong in Australia' - for example, which races, and why? Please elaborate. Eyedubya (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Nationalism is a point of view that the nation state should be monocultural (indeed, it views that monoculture as being superior to any alternatives within the nation state). While a lot of it is gut parochialism, the rational basis was that a monoculture can be strong and that any weakening influences weaken our competitive advantage as a nation and our ability to assist our own. It was the basis of the White Australia policy and to some extent was the basis of the Australian settlement which was disrupted by major social change in the 1960s and onwards, but is still intact in many (especially rural) parts of Australia. A nationalist would for instance not think a Malaysian to be worth less than an Australian, but more than they belong in Malaysia rather than Australia, and should be contributing to their economy and culture instead of trying to modify ours. A nationalist would for example refuse employment to Malaysians on the same terms as Australians on the basis that we have our own economy to strengthen. Arthur Calwell used to articulate these sentiments very well. I find it a somewhat ignorant and repulsive point of view, especially in Australia which is a country of migrants, but I can at a rational level comprehend it. Orderinchaos 09:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm ... what you have described is Ethnic nationalism, there are many other types of nationalism, the WP article on Nationalism lists at least 10 types, and under the sub-section on racism says: Nationalism does not necessarily imply a belief in the superiority of one race over others, but in practice, many nationalists support racial protectionism or racial supremacy. Such racism is typically based upon preference or superiority of the indigenous race of the nation, but not always. So, ethnic nationalism is a form of racism - after all, what is the logic behind the idea that some 'races' belong in specific places, while others can go around the world colonising places that they didn't originally belong in? There is also the issue of essentialism which is foundational to the concept of race - that is, the notion that there are real, biological differences in temperament, ability, intelligence, etc. between people related to their skin colour, physiognomy and place of birth. The idea that a Malaysian is incapable of adapting (assimilating/integrating) into another culture is based on such a belief about the nature of difference. Apparently Calwell had friends who were Chinese and even learnt Mandarin so he could talk to them - if this is true, then why would he have supported a policy of exclusion? Clearly, those Chinese he knew were sufficiently like him to become friends, so why argue that such people couldn't be part of the Australian nation? Eyedubya (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, it grates with me personally. I mean, I'm a white Anglo-Australian and I'm sitting here drinking "minuman cincau" (grass jelly) and eating my own hybridised turkey rendang (done the cheat way in a stir fry pan) - I suppose latte was never really my thing. But I think in a past era of Australia's development such an attitude as I'd described above was much much closer to the norm than it is today (and it's not entirely irrelevant in my belief that Howard grew up in the 50s.) Orderinchaos 11:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah! a 'good white multiculturalist' rather than an 'evil white nationalist', eh? Don't be a race traitor! :) Eyedubya (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't doing much more than highlighting the amusing fact that I was trying my best to describe Australian nationalism from a reasonably NPOV standpoint while hardly fulfilling the typical profile myself, and throwing in a self-deprecating reference to the latte left, to which my social views are broadly held to belong. Orderinchaos 23:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
One good turn deserves another! :) Eyedubya (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiculturalism IS a legit issue

I agree with other editors that "Racism" is a loaded word and doesn't belong here. But I strongly disagree with any suggestion that the issue of multiculturalism is not personally relevant to Howard *and* a significant theme in at least his earlier political years. It was a significant element of his political ascendancy (in that he was heavily critical of what he saw multiculturalism as being). If this BLP is to be rehaped thematically, "Multiculturalism", in some form or another, deserves a place. Another suggestion might be "Multiculturalism and Immigration", as these issues tended to be politically, if not logically, correlated. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As Australia is one of the few countries in the world with de jure policies of support for multiculturalism, Howard's views on the topic are worthy of inclusion under a heading that makes them easy to find. Multiculturalism and National Identity might be one, Brendan's suggestion is another. Or, perhaps Multiculturalism, Immigration and National Identity. Howard did articulate strong views that covered all three of these areas in ways that formed a coherent set of ideas, no matter how unpalatable to some. Again, this is one of those areas where it would be necessary to be rigorous in covering both his public statements as well as what actually happened (though care needs to be taken to distinguish content that might be more relevant to the Howard Govt article), since the rhetoric and the reality often seemed to be at odds with each other. As has been argued by many in other forums, contemporary identity politics and neo-liberalism can reinforce each other, blurring and complicating simplistic left-right categorisations. Eyedubya (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - my comments were only in relation to attempts to add a "Racism in Australia" category to the article. Three books I have analysing the Howard decade each dedicate an entire chapter to these issues. Orderinchaos 00:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I am also in agreement with the previous 3 editors, to the Multicultural category being used for the article, as Howard was an opponent to Multiculturalism.--Lester 00:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I oppose a "Multiculturalism" category for the same reason I oppose any "racism" category - it's a misuse of categories. See my comments above, and read Wikipedia:Categorization. But of course the article needs to discuss multiculturalism. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
By that logic User:Peter Ballard would have to disagree with some of the other section headings as well. After all, where is the category for 'leadership and retirement doubts', 'relationship with George Bush', or 'relationship with indigenous Australia'. I think User:Peter Ballard is making a category error here, since we are no longer discussion what categories to put at the foot of the article, but the naming and content of segments within it. If necessary to spell it out, the title of the section could be 'relationship with multiculturalism', and even, 'relationship with racism'. Such formulations do not imply that Howard was or wasn't 'a multiculturalist' or 'a racist'. Eyedubya (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I'm talking about the "Category" tags at the bottom of the article, not the section headings. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, once the article content is sorted out, perhaps the category tags will follow. Seems little point in putting a cat tag on before the content appears. Eyedubya (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I find it hard to accept that "multiculturalism" or "racism", or for that matter, other intangible concepts "social conservatism", "economic reform", etc, etc will ever make a useable category. Those things belong in article prose. There is no getting around the fact (and no matter how well an article is written), if we put "racism" category there, there is an implication to at least some readers that the intent of the article is to ascribe racism to the subject. Categories, per the wikipedia policy, are to be left for inarguable and punchy concepts - year of birth, prime ministership, political party (as opposed to editor's interpretation of ideology), religion, etc (indeed, there are a view dodgy ones in there already). --Merbabu (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • indent removed As per comments by other editors I would not support such categories being applied to this article. I could contemplate perhaps the Al Grassby being categorised as "Multiculturalism" . I note that article is currently not categorised that way despite as the article currently puts it he gained a reputation as a one person propaganda unit for the benefits of multiculturalism. It was in that case a major element of his career and he was major influence of the policy as it applied in Australia. Howard is not a topic you need to find under that category any more than i would expect to find him under Category:History of Indigenous Australians or any topic in which he had been majorly involved in during his time in politics unless he had a stunningly defining influence. --Matilda talk 00:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Well ... its funny you should mention that. John Howard's views on indigenous Australians ('black armband view of history', 10 point plan, ATSIC, national apology, NT intervention) would seem to warrant at least a passing mention, since the history of indigenous Australians is still being written. Keeping Australian PMs out of it seems to be ignoring one of the elephants in the room. Eyedubya (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Labor "budget black hole" should go

I propose deleting the line about the Labor "budget black hole", at the beginning of the 1996 section. When Howard first came to power, he stated that the previous government left the economy in good shape. It was only many years later (maybe around 2000) that Costello started going on about the Labor "budget black hole". The reference doesn't support it particularly well. Also, a few sentences forward, the line about paying off "Labor" debt is similar. A line that previously said the debt was paid by raising taxes has been deleted for some reason.--Lester 01:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a ref from 1996: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s10756.htm . The (alleged) budget black hole was a big deal in 1996, and was the excuse for cutting "non-core promises". It's an important part of the politics of his first term, and needs to stay, in one article or the other. "When Howard first came to power, he stated that the previous government left the economy in good shape" - are you serious? Peter Ballard (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Peter, I like your wording here better, that the issue came up in 1996 and was the stated reason for cuts in "non-core" promises. -Lester 01:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually do remember it from 1996... it was quite a famous line. It's all in how you say things - we need to have people asserting things and expressing their opinion that..., not that it was indeed so. (Applies to most political situations :)) Orderinchaos 05:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
disagree We see criticism of Howard on the Kevin Rudd page, this is in the same vein. --Surturz (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I presume from the context you're disagreeing with the OP and not my post above? (It's OK if you are, just seeking clarity :)) Orderinchaos 10:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I disagree that the quote should be removed; I think it should stay. It's quite inconsistent for certain editors to argue that anti-Howard quotes should remain in the Kevin Rudd article, but anti-Labor quotes in this article should be removed. --Surturz (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The other thing is that we're describing it as Labor's black hole. We could say that Howard government treasurer Peter Costello claimed the budget deficit was caused by Labor, but we are stating it as fact (rather than a Costello claim). We don't have any facts as to what was the cause of the deficit. I note that none of the editors here who usually complain about hyperbole being used to describe negative events of the Howard government are as yet complaining about such emotive language as "black hole" (astronomical terminology) being used to describe the previous Labor government's economic management. What are the reasons for this acceptance of hyperbole used to describe faults with the Labor party? --Lester 00:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, we should be reporting assertions in this case - the term "black hole" was used and is sufficiently notable to be covered, but should not be applied as fact (as the facts are largely unknown anyway, I suspect, even to many of the players involved) to anything and should more mark the particular stance of the Coalition government of the time. Orderinchaos 02:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Missing Events

Here are some more parts of the Howard story that are currently not covered in either of the two Howard articles:

  • Howard family New Guinea interests (previously deleted from article)
  • Howard's use of alcohol in the 1980s due to his despair over losing leadership to Peacock (deleted from article)
  • Commencement of mining at Kakadu
  • Ban on public taking photos of parliament
  • Immigration -initially reduced, family reunion reduce - skilled migration for business increased in last term
  • Claims of ABC bias, and inquiries into it
  • Australian Federal Police office running in Indonesia to stop boat people
  • Details of the use of outback detention centres, controversy, conditions, riots etc
  • Temporary Protection Visas (TPV) given to refugees
  • Internal revolt over refugeess - Petro Georgio et al
  • Semi-automatic pistols not subject gun control (deleted from article)
  • Howard fronts gun lobby wearing a flak jacket
  • SIEV-X saga
  • Howard's ongoing, continuous, close relationship with GWBush
  • Howard's continual denial of Iraq war plans through 2002 and early 2003
  • Tough talk about Weapons of Mass Destruction
  • AWB scandal
  • Telstra sale
  • Claims that Howard government shut down Senate inquiries and debates (eg for Telstra sale)
  • Howard's promotion of nuclear energy
  • Term 4 - falling popularity in 2007 - meetings by colleagues to overthrow him

I will cross-post it on the H Government article.--Lester 03:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

new items 11:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC):

  • Howard's stated admiration for historian Geoffrey Blainey
  • Howard's stated opposition to multiculturalism

Please reply at Talk:Howard_Government#List_of_Missing_Events - already several comments there. No need to have two discussions going. --Merbabu (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we've got to keep WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE firmly in mind in reviewing the article. I may have my own opinions of John Howard and I may even have worked at three elections since 1998 to try and see him gone (being out of the country for the other), but Wikipedia, if not Howard, deserves the best quality research and academic work we can do to present a neutral, balanced article about a man who spent almost one-third of the federal parliament's history in parliament and over half of that as treasurer, opposition leader or prime minister. Doing this requires putting a lot of personal views aside and relying heavily on published, reliable sources. Additionally, a lot of the controversies above don't actually relate a lot to Howard personally. Orderinchaos 05:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Those relating to Howard personally can go in the BLP, the rest can go in Howard Government. Eyedubya (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the talk page to restore items to the list that were deleted. I added a couple more points to the list today, and I don't see why that's a problem, as each point is being discussed individually at Talk:Howard_Government#List_of_Missing_Events.--Lester 09:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

1989 leadership loss

Here is a draft rewrite of the paragraph about Howard losing leadership in 1989:

The loss of the Liberal Party leadership presented a devastating blow to Howard, who offered a tearful apology to his staff who had gathered in a Canberra restaurant. After a brief stint on the backbench, Howard returned to the Coalition front bench, but his leadership ambitions were again dashed when Peacock lost the 1990 election and the Liberals turned to a new younger leader, former Howard staffer Dr. John Hewson. The period became known as Howard's "wilderness years", and with Liberal Party leadership seemingly out of his grasp, Howard admitted that he would sometimes drink too much. Asked whether he would try again to attain the Liberal leadership, Howard likened the possibility of his political comeback to "Lazarus with a triple bypass".

It shows some flaws in Howard, but it also makes him look more human. Here's one reference, but there are more refs available, for example the published biography. --Lester 05:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the hyperbole could be toned down, but aside from that it seems unproblematic to me. Orderinchaos 09:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, tone down the hyperbole - or, per my suggestions below, get rid of it...
  • "presented a devastating blow" needs to be dropped - unless it, or similar, is a significant quotation from man himself. It's not a biography but an encyclopedia. Facts, not drama (even if accurate).
  • "tearful apology to his staff" is borderline keep, but not sure about the Canberra restaurant - that's trivia.
  • "Brief stint" - well, how long?
  • "Leadership ambitions dashed" - drop it, it's just padding that needs to go. Just say Hewson was chosen over him. Simple, done, facts only.
  • "Wilderness years" - get rid of it. According to whom? Why is their term significant?
  • "seemingly out of his grasp" - POV, unverifiable, not encyclopedic. If there is a significant point in there, then it needs rewording/clarification from the ground up.
The Lazarus quote is almost iconic. and if a broad range of editors support it (not just the usual suspects), I'd support the drinking bit too. --Merbabu (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Merbabu. I put the paragraph into the article. In response to your concerns, I removed "devastating blow", removed the Canberra Restaurant, "Brief Stint" is still there, but those words have been in the article for the past year, maybe we can get more exact time periods. "Leadership ambitions dashed" is still in there... the references link the drinking to the leadership loss, and we needed slightly different wording to what the reference uses... maybe we can still word it differently. Thanks,--Lester 12:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
And, I just modified it heavily per recommendations from orderinchaos and myself. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
We need a date for the Lazarus quote. I think it was actually the day he lost the leadership. The article doesn't make that clear. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
For Merbabu, I found a replacement to "leadership out of his grasp", which I changed to "leadership alluding him". To Peter Ballard, if you think it needs a date we can find that. --Lester 12:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Didn't like the tearful apology? It's the only account I know of that documents Howard in tears. When Bob Hawke was in tears we always knew about it. Also, I changed "deeply affected" to "emotionally affected", as John Hewson is quoted as saying that in the last reference of that paragraph (ABC). --Lester 13:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
the fact that it is the only reference you know should suggest its not notable, not the opposite. Indeed, Hawkes regualar tears were famous, as was Fraser's tears when he lost the 1983 election. --Merbabu (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not the only reference available of his tearful apology. It's the only "account" or the only documented time that Howard cried.--Lester 13:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It's just not notable - in contrast, he's fallen over a number of times - that's a sign of the 'weakness' you seem keen to display. Sensibly you haven't pushed that, though. --Merbabu (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) His 'tearful apology' is not notable because it wasn't in public (unlike Hawke and Fraser). I think we can all assume he cried several times for several reasons in private. --Surturz (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the tearful apology did actually occur in a public place. It just wasn't captured on camera. --Lester 20:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead - fresh discussion

There's been a way too long discussion (above) on immigration in the lead. It seems to me that consensus is going to be very hard if not impossible to achieve.

So I'm trying to think what would be the most neutral way to put issues in the lead, and I think it would be to simply list the key issues, avoiding as far as possible anything which puts a judgement in, such as loaded words like "reform", "reconciliation" and even "increased", because there just isn't room in the lead for nuances and presenting opposing points of view. So I propose the lead says something like:

"Major issues for the Howard Government were taxation, industrial relations, immigration, the Iraq war, and aboriginal relations".

It's very sterile, but it avoids POV accusations, and at least it indicates what to expect in the body of the article. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Agree completely about what you have called “loaded terms”. Will try and add more later to the discussion. Do you consider this a closed list? There are a few more that could go on, although that might scuttle your consensus efforts. --Merbabu (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No I don't consider this a closed list, though many more than six or seven gets cumbersome IMHO. I was more interested in getting the idea right than saying definitively what goes on the list. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it. As mentioned above, I'm happy for the list to change a little, so long as it lists issues in a neutral way. It has also occurred to me that, ideally, the list should reflect what are the major issues in the article. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Category?

surely this article should be in the Living people category? Thurstan (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Source? ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Howard/Archive_13&oldid=1057377944"