This is an archive of past discussions about John Howard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I've just restructured the remainder of the PM'ship section. Ie, I've dispersed the info in thematically based sections into rough chronological order within the existing by-term structure. But, it's not purely chronological - ie, I have kept some bits together thematically. eg, the GST over the 1st two terms, the "when I'm 64" comments, and the refusal to make "the apology" i grouped together. There's probably more opportunity for a little more thematic based consolidation, but I recommend it on a *mostly* by-term basis.
Note, I did not remove any info - at least in the three restructure edits. I might have rephrased a few sentences to make it fit better, and there is most probably more re-prhasing to do to make it fit/flow better. And, this is not to say I don't want to see more changes - but I thought it about time that I re-structured it. Perhaps thematic-based sub headings can go under the terms, which I've included here in my userspace as a sample. But, i think it's a bit dodgy largely for the same reasons I'm arguing against theme based structure here.
Why this change? I agree that in theory, thematic structure has some merit. However, it just didn't work here, and indeed, I think it is very hard to get it to work anywhere, particularly if the subject is controversial. SOme of the problems here were the selection of what was to go together - the mere existence of some of these themes was POV and pointy. And the lack of others, was also a major POV problem. Based on this page's record, I really don't hold much faith in our ability to put together a well-written article based on themes.The recent series "The Howard Years" was, IMO, excellently structured. It was themed, but themed within a chronological term-based structure. I thought it worked very well. THe structure was straight up and down and indeed, Howard said he wouldn't have approved of the venture if it wasn't by term. I have tried to emulate this structure (although, the Howard Government article has more opportunity to develop this structure fully. And, the article itself was in a bad state - some of the PM info was chronological, the rest was forced awkwardly in themes.
So, in summary - it's still by themes (I'd argue more so now with more themes developed) but these themes are within a by-term order. And, I didn't remove stuff in that change. And, it's not my end to changes to the article - but it is an important line drawn in the sand. I've tied to be very gentle in my approach and tried to cater to sensitivities over this article, and hopefully I've explained myself well enough (and I hope the changes speak for themselves). Rather than a quick revert, I hope people can mull over the new look, and/or ask questions, or help me tweak it - I'm not saying it's perfect, yet. --Merbabu (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the changes as made are a significant step towards where we need to be with this article. Agreed that chronology is the way to move with this. Good work! Orderinchaos14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Support a restructure. Now there is a line under the Howard govt, it is a good time to get some real quality into this article, and establish some sort of narrative. Hybrid chrono/topic sounds like a good way to proceed. --Surturz (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
nice to see your agreement but did u miss the fact that I have actually already done it? Yeah - hybrid chrono/thematic with chrono taking priority is a good way to put it. --Merbabu (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Surturz, for me, the restructure is largely complete – perhaps there is some tinkering to do, ie, I can see now a few places where the old wording/syntax doesn’t quite fit/flow. However, I still want to continue with research and more changes similar to what I’ve been doing of late.
ie, I really think there is room to trim some sections. Ie, that Iraq and opinion polling section. Don’t you think that quality of wording, rather than quantity is better at making a point? Better to be smoother and less wordy, rather than the current somewhat pointy and tedious. What really is the main point that is pertinent to Howard? Suggest that war was undoubtedly unpopular when first proposed, then (some?) polling suggests it was less unpopular at the time of invasion, yet then it was undoubtedly unpopular again afterwards. Can’t we just say it was generally unpopular and maybe put the polls into the footnotes – even Howard himself said it was unpopular. Also, the discussion of Latham and Crean. Do we need all that? Or is there a more pertinent point to Howard that can be said more succinctly? These are just two examples.
And it’s not just readability – the trimming will also make room for a few more points that are likely to be raised in the future.
PS, what about the heading sample in my user space? (link above). I like the idea in principle, but the implementation seems to just bring out the problems I was trying to solve with the restructure. --Merbabu (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Returning to this article after some time, I see distinct improvement in structure and topic inclusion, will peruse again for suggestions - thanks Merabu Observoz (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Removed pic
Good pic. However, there is a very larg text box down the right side, and a narrow pic on the left. This picture was placed into the relevant text near details of Howard's schooling.
The problem is that when the text box is long, it pushes any picture below it down the page, taking the subsequent text with it. If your screen is very narrow, then the body of text in the article extends further and there is no apparent problem. However, on my wide screen there is a gap in the middle of the section that is two inches deep. This is not acceptable formatting. It is a problem frequently created by the insertion of, or adding material to long text boxes. (I hate them!)
I agree with the problem of the info box. They are often tedious. I think it would be a great shame to lose that pic and would rather have the info box culled. I too have that problem with layout on different computers (and in other articles – Indonesia for one). --Merbabu (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
"Howard's initial silence concerning the immigration views of Pauline Hanson—a disendorsed Liberal Party candidate and independent MP—was widely criticised in the press as an endorsement of Hanson's views.[50] Howard said that she was entitled to express her opinion, that many others would share it,[51] and that to denounce her would "elevate it". Howard repudiated her views seven months after Hanson's controversial maiden parliamentary speech.[50]"
I'm no fan of Howard's handling of Hanson, but is that summary (taken from "The Howard Years") really fair? I distinctly remember parliament passing a motion condemning Hanson's policies - I've got a reference in a personal email from early November 1996 but I can't find a ref. Can someone help? Or was it just seen as not a strong enough reaction? (I certainly remember it much more clearly than the 1997 speech). Peter Ballard (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Labor did try to paint Howard as racist. No, Howard was not. Under Howard, immigration (quietly) reached record levels - even asian immigration.[1][2] I think immigration was only ever reduced in Howard's first term. --Surturz (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Peter, you did add "widely criticized" - which i think *is* unfair and weaselly. Better would have been to keep it as "His critics said/felt/etc...". Now the question is how wide is "wide" and we get this drilling down and expansion on who was his critics.
Also, that immigration increased doesn't mean that the Howard-Hanson controversy didn't happen. And because immigration increased under the Howard Govt doesn't mean that Howard was a racist and it doesn't mean he wasn't. In fact, immigration per se wasn't really connected - not like it was in later years with asylum seekers, citizen test, THe Hanson-Howard controversy was a big issue in the first term regardless of immigration - to make the connection is synthesis.
Also, because Parliament passed the motion, doesn't mean that Howard himself agreed - indeed, many people within the Lib party weren't happy with his action (or lack of).
In summary, the Howard-Hanson thing was big news and dragged on for a while. I felt I'd represented both sides fairly. It doesn't matter if we here think he was racist or not, the point is there was a controversy over it that lasted for months (years?), and it should be represented here as one of the 3 or 4 defining aspects of his first term. Yes, my wording was vague (his critics...) but it was certainly neutral. Indeed, keeping it vague was an advantage, because now we are going to argue and twist the prose around into all sorts of details about who actually said it. It's going to be worse than the contract law prose about the Iraq war opinion polls. --Merbabu (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It's OK to remove "widely" if you want - I was remembering the very wide criticism, but I had a blind spot, forgetting it was largely of Hanson (duh!) not Howard. And I agree with that immigration numbers is a separate issue (have they ever decreased under any recent PM?). BTW The Howard Years transcripts are up on the ABC web site and look look like a pretty good resource. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Peter, I'm going to back it up further with more resources - then propose new wording. The fact I didn't provide enough references was in retrospect a problem. Yes, I tried to sum up a lot in a few sentences (and will continue to do so), but I really though i gave both sides a good balanced hearing ie, "his critics..." combined with "Howard's response was..." but much of that has been changed around today. I certainly didn't intend to paint him as "suspect on race" or not suspect. It was just a big issue focussed on Howard more than the govt. But, as you seem to have been around and politically aware at the time, you seem to have some sense of the times. I remember very clearly sitting relieved on my verandah in Semarang reading about Howard's "repudiation" on the front page of The Jakarta Post, and discussing it with curious neighours who had read it in Kompas. As for Howard Years transcripts, i tried not to quote the refs on this page and Howard Govt, but it provided me with a number of good ideas and sanity checks. Sprung! --Merbabu (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't mean to go off topic (ahem), but ref #38 is highly suspect. I recall the book covered the Australian League of Rights well, because I was involved with the CEC at the time, but otherwise was as unfair as Macintyre's Introduction to the Culture Wars—basically a 300 page rant about how none of the Liberal "elites" have actually "studied" history. Ottre 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Merbabu's analysis is completely off-kilter. Who said anything about removing the section? Of course it was a big deal at the time. These straw man arguments are quite awful, Merbabu. "Widely criticised in the press" is supported by the refs and not weaselly. "Howard's critics say..." is CLEARLY weaselly. What critics? "Howard's critics" is not a well-defined group at all. There may well have been critics of Howard that said he didn't support Hanson enough! It is fairly well known now that Howard's strategy was to attempt to starve Hanson of publicity. This strategy failed, probably because the Liberal wets couldn't keep quiet about her. The reference even states that the Asian press were hostile to Howard on this issue, and Merbabu is basing his/her views on that! Ballard's text is much better than the original "denounce"-filled version. If we are going to talk about 'sense of the times' we must remember that the ALP at that stage was somewhat electorally beholden to ethnic groups who favoured family reunion over skills-based immigration, also that Keating et al tended to branded anyone who suggested a reduction in immigration as 'racist'. The real issues were skills vs family reunion, and integration vs multiculturalism. The asian immigration/race stuff was the 6 o'clock news version of the debate. --Surturz (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Surturz, now you are acknowledging an issue was notable and verifiable, thus isn't it a little tendentious to argue over the wording "Howard's critics...". Either you are arguing it's notable and one of the major points of his first term, or you are saying there actually wasn't much criticism. Which one is it? If it was the former, then you show some common sense and stop nit picking, but if you think it is the latter (ie, not notable), then you had better prove the references incorrect. As for the word "denounce" it is no longer in the text and no-one argued with the change so why are you still bringing it up here and on my user page?--Merbabu (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm bringing it up because you claimed the addition of 'eventually' was POV, but ignored the existence of the word "denounce" which is clearly much more emotive. I am not being inconsistent, tendentious or nit-picking as you claim, "Howard's critics" is clearly WP:WEASEL and you should not be defending the term. We should say who was criticising him - the press, or the Labor party, or an ethnic lobby, whoever - and we shouldn't be asserting that it is coupled with his Asian immigration statements unless it is WP:V. And stop trying to infer that I don't think the item should be in the article, I have never thought that nor ever tried to delete the text. I have already asked you not to use straw man arguments. --Surturz (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah - i still maintain that "eventually denounced/repudiated" is a judgement. Futher, it is not necessary as the actual time frame (ie, a fact rather than judgement) is there. I've also said a few times on my talk page that I cannot explain it to you any clearer. If it is so innocuous, then why do you insist on it? As for the word "denounce", please refer to my post above. There were many more than just the press criticising. So, I ask you how wide is "widely criticised". "His critics" (because they were criticizing him as you are one of mine on this point -it's not rocket science) is much more succinct and is less weasally than "widely". By using "his critics" I'm trying to avoid the mess that is the Iraq war section which you insist on having. --Merbabu (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Postnominals
We have AC in the lede, but AC SSI LLB in the infobox. Two issues:
LLB is the sort of postnom that's normally used only in educational contexts. It represents an educational achievement, not an honour or award. So I'd prefer it if it weren't mentioned at all.
If we use SSI, we should have it in both places. He may not use it on whatever his letterhead is these days, but he's entitled to do so if he wants. Therefore it's appropriate for us to use it; therefore the lede should be "John Howard AC SSI", as should the infobox. Any comments before I change it? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
University of Sydney style guide indicates that awards, educational qualifications and parliamentary designations should be interspersed. I think it informative to have all postnominals that Howard is entitled to use, whether or not he actually uses them. This article is not his business card, we should be complete. --Surturz (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
@ Surturz: Of course a university style guide will promote the use of educational postnoms, because they're relevant to that context. Style guides designed for general use do not.
Which style guide should we use, if not the Sydney University one? Which "style guide for general use" are you using? Do you have some evidence that the Sydney University style guide is prejudiced and not WP:RS? Why on earth would civil awards extinguish educational post noms? --Surturz (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The WP style guide seems to support education postnoms (where "issued by a country or organization with which the subject has been closely associated"), but doesn't explain why, for example, Gough Whitlam is shown as "Gough Whitlam AC QC", and not "Gough Whitlam AC QC LLB". And many other cases where people had bachelors, masters or doctoral degrees but their educational postnoms are not shown. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Sarah. That's helpful, however, the MOS does not actually say anything about precedence, or absorption. It assumes the editor is familiar with the usage of honorifics, which we aren't. So I reckon the Syd Uni style guide still has a part to play. For Gough Whitlam, I would assume that QC encapsulates LLB (since you can't be a QC without a law degree). This also implies Howard's LLB should go into the article; if we mention Whitlam's legal qualifications, why shouldn't we also mention Howard's? --Surturz (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph implies the opening sentence should be "The Rt Hon John Howard.." (no post-nominals). This supports Orderinchaos, above. --Surturz (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Except that he ain't "The Rt Hon", just "The Hon". Remember the Australia Act 1986? Australians don't get appointed to the UK Privy Council any more. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
QC and LLB are still separate postnoms. If Gough were granted an honorary doctorate of laws, he'd be referred to by the uni in question as "... AC QC LLB", because LLB would be appropriate and relevant in that context. You never see it in any other context. I’ve found something interesting about foreign awards, here. That suggests that Peter Cosgrove is a CNZM, but only uses that postnom in NZ contexts. By that reasoning, Howard would not have SSI except in a Solomon Islands context. It should be mentioned in the text, but should not appear with his name in either the lede or the infobox. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, see the lists of names at the front of Hansard (here's yesterday's Reps) - you'll see AOs, AMs, QCs and SCs mentioned, and lots of MPs, but no educational quals. Does this mean that none of our reps have ever been to uni? Certainly not. My issue with including LLBs and all the rest is that, to be consistent, there would be literally thousands of articles that would need changing. It seems to be well accepted practice that they are not used except in the contexts to which they're relevant. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The other distinction between LLB and QC/SC is that LLB is granted by an educational institution, whereas QC/SC is granted by the state. It's not an offence, in itself, for Joe Bloggs to claim he has an LLB when he doesn't, but it is an offence to put QC/SC after your name if you haven't been given that honour by the state. Same applies for AC, KBE, KCMG, CH and similar state-awarded honours. The fact that you can't became a QC unless you're highly legally qualified and experienced does not make QC a legal qualification. It's an award, not a qualification. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to be corrected on QC/LLB - I was hypothesizing. I'm also happy to be corrected on "The Rt Hon" (for some reason I thought PMs got the "Rt"). I agree SSI is a little dubious. The real issue is whether we want to be complete, or whether we want to reflect common usage. I say complete is better, because WP is an encyclopedia and not everyone knows that Howard has an LLB. It is more informative. --Surturz (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It's fine to let people know that he has an LLB, if you think that's something worth mentioning. We can do that in the text. I've read hundreds of articles where reference is made to the person's studies; what they studied is mentioned (e.g. law, engineering, science), and also where they did it (e.g. University of Sydney; or sometimes just the name of the city, unless it's really important to specify Uni of Sydney vs. Uni of NSW vs. Macquarie vs ...). But, generally speaking, the precise name of the qualification does not merit a mention, and it certainly doesn't merit a postnominal. It's enough to know that Howard studied law at wherever. By all means provide details, but beware of turning articles into resumes.
Just on the Rt Hon thing, it used to be the case that PMs were automatically invited to join the Privy Council (and some other people - see Right Honourable#Australia for the surviving ones). The majority accepted. Whitlam declined. Fraser accepted, but he was the last one, and there won't be any more. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be The Hon. John Howard AC SSI and under it in smaller letters LLB (USyd) DUniv (Bond) and so on and so forth. The postnomial, unless you're specifically looking at education shouldn't be in that first line as part of the AC etc part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skoido (talk • contribs) 10:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring over Howard's response to Hanson
Care to explain why all my attempts to improve our coverage of the above have been reverted, without reason? The current wording is hardly biased as it is taken from the popular Review of the Reviewers column, and Matchett's interpretation has been supported (most recently echoed by a Dr. Kathleen Weekley) several times over the past five years in the left-wing Overland. I'm sure the book itself provides a more balanced view of Howard's comments regarding Hanson than the ABC news article does.
I don't accept the argument that it adds nothing to context, because the entire paragraph should be structured around the political culture of the time and (particularly) cynics within the Liberal Party. Dissatisfaction with party politics was a major influence on voting patterns in the 1998 election.
Moreover, I don't know if the editors involved are treating this separately from earlier contributions. In hindsight, my first edit was n't useful at all, but that's no reason for Merbabu to completely ignore me when I asked him to discuss how four pages of Andrew Markus prove definitively that the One Australia policy "opposed multiculturalism", and OIC to remove another perfectly valid source. Ottre 19:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
While, to be honest, I personally don't think your latest contributions in this area were necessary, I agree with you that it is poor form for other editors to simply revert your changes with no discussion on this page. Particularly hypocritical is Merbabu's rebuke to use the talk page, when not doing so his/herself. As for your specific complaints:
changing the reference you added does not seem to be necessary - the text is already referenced adequately with 'The End of Certainty' by Kelly.
Assuming the Goot reference is an WP:RS, this 'context' sentence would be better in the Howard Government article, since this is a biography article and the sentence is not particularly about John Howard.
By the way, when you sign talk page contributions, you can use four tildes to automatically provide links to your personal pages as explained here. Apologies if you already know this and are intentionally signing a different way. --Surturz (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The addition is a non-notable opinion. Indeed you will notice that there aren't many opinions here in the article. Why should this one go in instead of 100s (1000's???) of others. There are many more notable opinions that dont get included what's special about this one? It is poorly worded, incomprehensible (what does it mean?) and adding a reference to an opinion doesn't make it either neutral or relevant. It's an esoteric tangential addition that doesn't fit in a fact-based encyclopedia. It would great for a first year political science essay contrasting political appeal within the electorate. Also, could you please sort out your signature--Merbabu (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You do realise Goot is a published political scientist? There is no more reliable source available on Howard reverting to his old form RE cynicism. Ottre 22:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
A published political scientist is the criteria for inclusion of an opinion? We would have a one very long article then. And don't alter other people's comments.[3] Apart from being against wikipedia policy it is not a great way to win friends or more importantly to influence people. As I said, you seem to misunderstand some wikipedia basics. --Merbabu (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
How nice of you to say. In this article from a decade later he is quoted as saying "I followed Pauline Hanson quite closely", which makes his review notable enough among political scientists. You are right that it should be double-checked for inclusion. Ottre 11:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Howard dragging his feet on Campbell Enquiry
Timeshift added, and Lester re-added, text quoting an opinion piece in The Australian claiming that Howard "dragged his feet" on the Campbell enquiry. The admin User:Orderinchaos has previously indicated (click here) that opinion pieces, even if they are on the front page of a quality newspaper, cannot be used to insert commentary into articles. While I disagree with Orderinchaos' ruling, I think all editors should abide by it, to avoid double standards. --Surturz (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It largely depends on who wrote the piece and the tone of the article. But the article in question[4] is clearly an opinion piece attacking Howard, and I believe the author (Michael Costello) is a former Keating staffer. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The offending edit is here. I actually reworded Timeshift's text, before Surturz deleted it. You could argue about whether or not the text is good or bad, but it doesn't break any rules regarding reliable sources.--Lester00:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Surturz is comparing chalk and cheese with the OIC example and my example. My edit is very straight forward and isn't OR-SYN'y, simply stating the truth, that Howard dragged his feet on the Campbell enquiry, however in that example, you're taking a complete opinion and is very OR-SYN'y. The article in question, though by a Keating staffer, uses facts to establish that Howard very much overstretches his economic legacy. Even Malcolm Fraser agrees. Not a single cabinet submission. Read the article. But I don't care enough to have a long discussion over this, leave it out, let the readers think Howard pushed Fraser for neoliberal economic reforms. Let the pro-Howard article stay. It's not as if anyone reads up on Howard anymore anyway. Timeshift (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you think we should only include positive, not negative views on Howard? Fraser is a former Liberal PM! Read the article in it's entirety. This bit is telling: "Fraser points out that Howard cannot produce a single cabinet submission in which Howard proposed any measure to open up and modernise the Australian economy that was knocked back. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Fraser's word has to be accepted." Timeshift (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I looked up the Campbell Report in The End of Certainty by Kelly, which I think several of us have used as a WP:RS. This is an excerpt (p78):
But the challenge for the government was immense since the treasury opposed the report's core and the Reserve Bank was equivocal.
Howard decided on a 'bit by bit' approach to Cabinet for fear of seeing the entire Campbell Report lost. Fraser had a farmer's suspicion of banks and in Visbord's view 'his opposition to deregulation was to moves that could have given the banks more influence, more freedom, more power'. The dominant Fraser-National Party Cabinet axis wanted to keep controls on bank lending rates, where Howard favoured the principle of deregulation. Howard was unable to overcome his two chief opponents, his own leader Fraser and his chief adviser, treasury secretary John Stone. Howard never asked Cabinet to float the exchange rate because he knew the Fraser-Anthony axis would kill any such submission.
This seems to contradict Timeshift's article on Howard's motive. The facts are the same - Campbell report was not pushed in Cabinet by Howard - but given widespread antipathy to (at the time) revolutionary economic ideas, I think it is reasonable to assume that Howard was cautious, rather than himself an opponent of the report.
I would argue Kelly is more reliable source since he wasn't a Labor staffer writing in the middle of an election campaign. Can we we can say something like "In proposing the reforms detailed in the Campbell report, Howard adopted an incremental approach to Cabinet, as there was wide opposition to deregulation within the government and the treasury"?--Surturz (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm "timeshort" today. ;-) Will consider and comment on issue over the weekend. Be nice everyone. Issues not editors. Collaboration not sarcasm. Compromise not trenches. Ponder the other opinion rather than wear ear muffs. --Merbabu (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Read the existing reference from the article (Link). Howard's stance on banking deregulation is different to his stance on other financial deregulation, and is different to his stance on the Campbell enquiry. Howard didn't want the enquiry to proceed.Lester22:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Lester, I couldn't see anything in the ref you indicated that Howard didn't want the enquiry to proceed. Which page should I be looking at? --Surturz (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, me and Surturz agreeing on something :) I am a firm believer in using only reliable sources for controversial assertions, and suggesting that a serving Prime Minister deliberately delayed something for political reasons (while it might well be the case, but could have other explanations) is what I would consider a fairly strong allegation to make. Depending on context, it may be possible to state that such allegations were made by others, and cite those. But it depends on whether those claims were sufficiently publicised (i.e. we're not becoming the main source for the info). Orderinchaos00:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
He was actually treasurer at the time, and a long way from having the political clout that he would later obtain. The issue is not whether Howard failed to push the Campbell report hard in Cabinet (we all agree he didn't push the Campbell report hard in Cabinet as Treasurer). Timeshift9's poor quality reference implies that Howard could have implemented the reforms but didn't because he didn't believe in them. My RS reference asserts that Howard was a strong believer in the reforms espoused in the Campbell report, but didn't force them through because of the simple facts that Prime Minister Fraser didn't support them, Howard's own department didn't support them, and Howard knew he wouldn't be able to get Cabinet to agree to them. An independent reserve bank, floating exchange rate, etc are all the orthodox philosophies now, but at the time were revolutionary. --Surturz (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
First, it's really not necessary to accuse another editor of adding "poor quality" references. If you don't like the references, talk about the references, without linking "poor quality" to another Wikipedian. Second, the replacement reference "Kelly (1994), pp. 78." is not online, and doesn't give enough information to find it. As it stands, that reference can't be used. Third, the Treasury (which at the time was run by Howard) was against instigating the Campbell Committee, as stated by the reference by author Bell (which is online). Yet you added text to say that Howard was in favour it. Whether Howard, in later years, agreed with the floating of the dollar is a different issue. The fact remains that Treasury didn't want the Campbell Committee to go ahead.--Lester20:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I have already quoted, verbatim, the text of my reference above. I have put the full reference into the article for User:Lester's benefit. I am not maligning Timeshift9's character; I am simply stating a fact that the reference he provided is low quality. I am sure there is no WP policy stating that dead tree books cannot be used. IMHO they are usually better quality than online references. --Surturz (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
No you didn't, Surturz, and you know very well that when this conversation started there was no meaningful reference. After a tirade of incivility at me (EDIT: Now deleted), telling me I should be embarrassed for not being capable of clicking on your wonderful reference, you later went back and slipped in the reference (diff) details which later made it clickable. Your little schemed attempting to make others look foolish has failed, and is now revealed for all to see.--Lester11:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Grow up guys. I'm sure everyone cares as little as me as to who started it. Just comment on the edits/issues at hand. Just as well I haven't looked into it in any detail. But, it seems the norm - two extreme POV's battling out that once again the middle non-controversial ground is booted out. If this is balance, then it's not good. We need neutrality and middle ground, not a balance of POV's. --Merbabu (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, two very opposite POV's. Why can't people just write factual stuff they know won't be controversial. Middle of the road stuff. The new section's a mess, as is the Iraq section with the tedious quoting of this poll said this, but that poll said that, etc, etc. That's all I ask - just info. Why don't you try it? --Merbabu (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
This crazy discussion started when a section of referenced text was deleted shortly after it was added. I didn't add it the first time round, but I re-added it purely because there was no discussion at the time, and no valid reason given for its deletion. I want people to initiate a discussion at the time any referenced content is deleted. If there's something else I added that's POV or non-factual, then it would help more if you were specific about what it was. I had nothing to do with Iraq content you mention.Lester13:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Look Lester, I apologise for the rant, which made incorrect accusations and which I did revert. However, I can't understand why you don't think I added the verbatim text above when it is still there. Here is a diff in any case. I did subsequently fix the reference to meet your concerns, even though the existing referencing ("Kelly (1994) p78") matches WP policy for repeated references (see Wikipedia:Ref#Shortened_footnotes). The issue is, perhaps, that the original reference did not come first. It would have been more helpful if you had simply fixed my referencing in the article, rather than trying to score points. Since you have been involved in the discussion, you must have already seen my verbatim quote, above, and must have known what book I was quoting.
It might be a losing strategy to appeal to common sense, but consider the following points:
End of Certainty was written in 1992 and revised in 1994, well before Howard returned to the leadership of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. A constant theme is how Howard and Hewson's radical (at the time) economic beliefs pushed the Liberal party into economic rationalism, away from 'Fraserism'.
He introduced the GST, a known election loser for the coalition. Common sense would tell you that a dilletante does not do something like that. It is a reasonable assertion that Howard developed his economic theories while he was Fraser's treasurer, and then implemented those theories when he became PM.
Considering all this, if we are going to try to imply that Howard stole Keating's ideas, we are going to need a lot more evidence than an attack piece written by a Keating staffer during an election campaign. Do you honestly believe that Howard came to the economic rationalist party late in his political career?
The ludicrous thing about this argument is that we essentially agree. Of course Hawke/Keating floated the dollar, deregulated banks etc. These are easily verifiable. But to assert that Treasurer Howard (as opposed to the Treasury) didn't believe in these policies is ludicrous. Not even Timeshift9's original reference by Michael Costello says that. --Surturz (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
International relations (Yodoyono/China/Clinton/Blair
1) The paragraph on East Timor and 1999 rightly refers to strained relations with Indonesia. I think, for completeness, the article has to also note that the relationship was subsequently repaired to the point where President Yodoyono would describe it as being at the highest point in the history of the two nations (I know a citation is available somewhere for this). Howard's prompt and supportive actions in the aftermath of the Tsunami were partly the cause of this and a warm bond developed between the leaders. The billion dollar aid package is perhaps the most significant of the remaining Howard policy omissions of the existing article?
2) Howard's position on China could be a good inclusion too: a steady expansion of the economic relationship was nurtured throughout Howard's reign which I believe he personally sights as his chief foreign policy accomplishment.
3) Also should the point be made that Howard lobbied hard for (an initially reluctant) Bill Clinton to support E. Timor action, as this is a significant point in the history of Howard's management of US relations? "We have supported you in every conflict and now we need your help" (from memory this was Howard's account in ABC's Howard Years.
4) Tony Blair and Howard had the closest relationship of Aust-British PMs in living memory. Should reference to this be made? Blair speaks of Howard as having had a rare clarity of intellect and strength of purpose as a leader (see ABC's extended Howard Years interview with Blair). He also recalls Howard's response to the 2005 London bombings as the greatest exposition by any leader of "what we are fighting for": that exposition can be found at http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=710702n
None of these points need be long 17:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your comments. I think there are some excellent points. A general comment is that some of these might be better placed in Howard Government. The Asian relationships are interesting. For someone (and a government) that was so heavily pilloried in its early years (and in many cases rightly), towards the end it had achieved some very impressive results. Specifically:
1) I had intended to include Howard's relationship with SBY (Yudhoyono) or more broadly with Indonesia. You are right - it certainly did bounce back after East TImor with the Bali Bombing cooperation and the tsunami efforts. Indeed, SBY and Howard developed a close personal relationship, but mentioning that didn't seem to be as popular on this page as was emphasizing Howard's relationship with Bush.
2) Certainly the China economic relations were very important and the government did a lot to foster that. However, is this something for this article or Howard Government? There's been two criteria for deciding what goes in here: it was a big event for the term, and Howard had a major role in it. Hence we end up with East TImor, Iraq, GST, Workchoices, Republic debate, Port Arthur, Wik, Economy, - all the really big stand out issues. I think we ended up with about 1/2 dozen issues per term which is good I think. Perhaps, we need to include the China exports boom in the economy. Just 1/2 a sentence as you allude to.
3) Howard did a lot of lobbying to get INTERFET off the ground - from memory he was actually at an APEC summit at the time, and indeed, he depended on Clinton's response and influence. It's kind of mentioned in the the sentence that starts "In September 1999, " but maybe it can be more specific - I suggest not adding to the word count though.
4) Not so sure about this one. Perhaps a mention of Blair where we mention his relationship with Bush.
I think we are largely on the same page - although I still think reference to the closeness to British PM is worth noting, especially for international readers. I think the "Bush's buddy" analysis needs inclusion of course, but Britain, Indonesia, Chinese government relations each also reached historic highs over Howard's reign (as well as historic lows in the case of Indonesia). In his later years as PM Howard was high in his praise of Indonesia's democratic transformation choosing his addresses to the Irish and Canadian Parliaments to promote Indonesia's reform record. President Hu of China also chose Australia as the first foreign country to visit and was the first Chinese leader to address the Australian Parliament (at Howard's invitation). Howard was also a fan of boosting India's profile, so was prepared to sell Uranium to them and supported the linking up of the democracies of Asia in a military alliance (a policy scrapped by Rudd as "overly ideological"). These things are significant to the Howard-the-man article because of the Central allegation against Howard by Keating in the 1990s that "Howard wouldn't be able to deal with Asia", and the references already made to Howard's comments about immigration in the 1980s. Observoz (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Xa-xa. The most salient point? For the first two years in Iraq, the ADF had the worst terms of engagement of any coalition force because Howard didn't move close enough to Blair. Ottre 10:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Why had he not been mentioned in the current suggestion that he, Bush 2 and Blair are all on board to be prosecuted for war crimes?
I am sure that this has been mentioned, but he was not appointed ICC President because of his "colonial", white = might stance.
Howard is too often given a teflon history. It is important that the facts are there to ensure people can make their own decision. I am happy to contribute if need be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperbole 2011 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Process of reform
{{editsemiprotected}}
Should the comment "The process of reform began before the committee reported 2½ years later" be changed to "The process of reform began before the committee reported two and a half years later," The comment in found in the "Federal Treasurer" section, paragraph two
I would change it myself, but i can't, if i am mistaken sorry... Ivey.eli (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
"Public Regard"?
That poll of 1000 people is an extremely poor source for information on how Howard is held in the "public regard". If that's the best example you can find, it shouldn't be there. Garth M (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm - i think removal was good. It kinda seemed notable at the time - or at least it could have been reasonably argued at the time as notable, but really, it's nothing compared to the rest of the items in the article. --Merbabu (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It should probably read Elections: 1996, 1998, 2001, 2004 to conform with the boxes for the other prime ministers. That also means you can link directly to each election. 122.167.75.137 (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Infobox Prime Minister - alma mater - Why?
I guess this is a globally used template for prime ministers everywhere, but for an Australian, the term alma mater doesn't really fit. I'm a graduate. I work and live with graduates. None of them ever use the term alma mater. I doubt if John Howard ever uses the term. Howard's predecessor didn't even have one! (And took pride in the fact.)
It seems to be another pretentious, pseudo Latin, Americanism being imposed on the whole of Wikipedia. Can we get rid of it, at least for Aussie PMs?
I knew I had one somewhere! Three shoeboxes later and finally I found what I was looking for. This is a pic of Howard I got when I was on holidays. If a use can be found for it go for it, if not delete it. GJGardner (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Children Overboard?
Seeing as this contributed majorly to a concurrent re-election and was a huge scandal, shouldn't it have at least some mention?
I've not the time to add the appropriate text, unfortunately, but someone certainly should, lest it simply be magically forgotten.
24.248.211.147 (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Why is this election not included with all of his others. He contested it as the leader of the opposition, so why isn't it there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.180.1.214 (talk) 07:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Northern Territory National Emergency Response
I think it would be helpful to include a reference to the Northern Territory National Emergency Response under the section titled 'Fourth Term'. Currently, the introduction identifies Aboriginal relations as a major issue for the Howard Government, and later there are references to some of Howard's earlier engagements with Aboriginal issues. However there is no mention of this final engagement, which is perhaps the most significant.
Aharanov (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
My personal view is that, because of its symbolism, his choice to not apologise was the most significant aspect of Howard's relations with Aboriginal people, and that is certainly mentioned in the article, but you're right that the NT intervention was also very significant. Care to could together some proposed words? HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Who throws a shoe? Honestly!
ref>
I'm curious about why there's a mention of that shoe throwing clown from Q&A, does any joe with an opinion suddenly become a notable figure or poster boy of dissent whose opinion suddenly matters when they chuck a shoe at someone? Plenty of people have strong opinions about him which is fine, he was a politician, but what exactly makes this guys little protest even worth a passing mention?
And on that, he was doing a bit more than just 'promoting his autobiography' on the show as the article implies.
Farticus1981 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
What was that "bit more"? The source seems to suggest that he was there to promote his book. With an audience there it created a chance for discussion of issues like Iraq, Hicks and Stolen Generation, all of which, of course, are topics of the book. As for whether the shoe throwing is notable, it did get a lot of media attention at the time. (And probably indirectly benefited book sales!) To me, perhaps the more notable aspect of the story was the bit about David Hicks asking Howard about his incarceration at Gitmo. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Not notable at all. It should be removed. unfortunately, Aust political articles are filled with tidbit headlines from the moment rather than researching for info on significant policy and issues, and their consequences. For example, Paul Keating's article has a section "Post politics" which is longer than his PM section and is basically a rolling list of Keatings comments as they appear in the newspaper. So, actually the Howard article is not the worst in this aspect.--Merbabu (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The 'bit more' was taking questions from the audience for pretty much the entire show on whatever topic they felt like asking a question about. The article only says he was there promoting his autobiography, of course he was doing the rounds in the media at the time promoting his book, his appearance on Q&A was a lot more than that.
If the question by Hicks for example is more notable (there's someone whose book can do with a little scrutiny, just for the understatement of the decade) isn't it a bit sad that a sideshow takes its place? Farticus1981 (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
There were three people there that night who actively sought and succeeded in gaining media attention, Howard, Hicks and the shoe thrower. Best we ignore them all on this occasion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
HiLo48 if we are to take your advice (ignoring all 3) even howard shouldn't have a mention here. i think the shoeing incident is noteworthy because 1. it gained international attention. 2. people who are often targets of shoeing are so because of something perceived to be controversial, i.e. specific policies. 3. shoeing, particularly after the infamous bush incident has sparked numerous copycat incidents internationally. Marxwasright (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I think my point is there under your number 3. There HAVE BEEN numerous copycat incidents. Too many for this one alone to be significant. It was a transient, now long gone, PR event. Nobody was harmed. Not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
@Merbabu: I realise I'm very late to this party, but what an interesting discussion. Though I will say that there's a mistaken assumption - about notability. I only discovered recently that according to Wikipedia’s notability guidelines "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article...These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni)." If notability of a subject is settled, then only question about whether particular content is used goes to policies like neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. Can also see: what wikipedia is not and biographies of living persons. H/T @Veronique Cognac:.
East Timor
I think, and I can never quite work out why, Howard's actions about East Timor are often not given due weight. It is arguable that his actions, directly or indirectly resulted in East Timor being decolonised by Indonesia, and getting independance. The indirect actions of Howard, and his direct actions with the UN basically led to the creation of a new country, and indirectly resulted in a colonising power removing its forces. Historically, this is pretty important stuff, and also quite possibly put Australian in a position where it could have had a military conflict with Indonesia. This is a major deal! Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The secession of ET from Indonesia was indeed a major deal. However, it is well and truly overstating significance to say that Howard was behind it. His role is often overplayed in Australian sources but not all, and non-AUstralian sources tend to provide a bit more balanced description. And, there are a number of sources who criticised the handling of it. Some called the chaos and the collapse of relations with Indonesia a international relations disaster - I'm not necessarily saying that's correct, just providing another POV to the "Howard saved ET" POV . There was a whole lot more going on than Howard's single letter to Habibie. And, yes it was a big deal for Australia, but that's different to crediting Howard with freeing East TImor. It's a given a full paragraph in this article, which is no less than any other of the major issues of his PMship - and that paragraph is longer than most in this article. --Merbabu (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, is it just a general comment, or do you have a specific problem with the existing text? If so, what is it? The text looks pretty good I thought - and as for word count, it's got more words written about than most of the other topics in the article. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
30th?
John Howard is the 30th Prime Minister not the 25th. The office of Prime Minister should be about the continuity of governance not the person who occupies it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.167.151 (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Summary of Howard's term - relying for a source on a quote in QUADRANT of all places - is hardly neutral
"Presiding over a period of strong economic growth and prosperity" is one view of Howard's premiership, and I'm not surprised it's held by someone writing in Quadrant. It's hardly a neutral or non-controversial one: there are many who'd dispute the "economic growth" (surpluses built on structural deficits) and "prosperity" (massive widening between rich and poor under Howard) claims. And what about the other aspects of Howard's time - a hardening of attitudes to the vulnerable, an increase in cruelty to refugees, a slashing of public services, taking us to war based on a lie...
(a) If you can't find a more neutral source of the claim than Quadrant, it shouldn't be there; and
(b) The summary should be more balanced - his time in office was marked by more than economic issues.
The subject image in a BLP article's infobox should represent the subject in the best possible quality available to us, and I'm not talking pixel count here. Images of politicians are always difficult, but I think the best show a recognisable person in a neutral setting. Above all, the image must evoke the subject, and that garish image of Howard at a desk with a plaque saying Prime Minister of Australia before a background of flags just doesn't look like him. It doesn't resonate. And it also fails in an aesthetic sense. Something appears wrong with the lighting, the body proportions are distorted, the whole thing is too "busy". --Pete (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
While your opinion is valued, I wonder if you have any factors for your opinion to share and discuss? Looking at a few other similar images, I find the Kevin Rudd shot kind of disappointing, because in my mind he's always such a cheery chap. The photo of Julia Gillard is just superb, I think. Look at her, you get the feeling she's not one to bend easily. Besides, the photo you like is already included in the article further down. Looking further, I see the Coffs image has been leading the article for a couple of years with no dissent on the talk page. You've made many edits during that time and haven't expressed any opinion, let alone changed it. Now you say there's two other editors as well as yourself who are keen to make a change. Could you explain this? --Pete (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on the lead image, but the same image should not be used twice in the article. The guidelines WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE cautions against using the same image twice. If Howard @ UN is used in the lead, it should not be repeated later, or vice versa. WWGB (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I've removed what had become the second instance of that picture. I have not (as yet anyway) found a new location for the old lead pic. Is it required? --Merbabu (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
As an explanation, it's a higher resolution, it's not grainy, and really, I find the latter one more towards "garish" and I think it evokes the subject less than the new. Not sure how to answer the fact that it doesn't "resonate" with you or how it fails "aesthetic sense". The other is more poorly lit, I can't see any problem with the body proportions, and the issues of busyness or otherwise is not relevant.
As for your question on my timing, there’s no statute of limitations on when an editor needs to raise an issue, or support or make an improvement. --Merbabu (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The higher resolution is an objective factor, to be sure, but not a major one, given that we're not displaying either image at full resolution in the info box. You spoke of two other editors sharing your opinion. Did you have anybody in mind? --Pete (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you're saying the other measures are subjective and therefore invalid, then the resolution is the only one left. And you agree that the newer image has better resolution. And, you'll note my skepticism on what's subjective and if that makes it irrelevant. The new one is better lit for starters, it doesn' appear grainy in either thumbnail or full view, and proportions are not subjective).
Perhaps you could name the two editors? I only count one. Someone with no previous contributions to this article who replaced an image that had been an uncontested and highly visible part of the article for two years with one which had been replaced and not mourned. I raised the resolution issue because it is irrelevant - we're not showing it in anything like the full resolution. The only factors remaining are subjective, and you seem to disagree with me on every point there. The only other input is from WWGB, who underlines my observation that the image appears further on in the article and it shouldn't be used twice. Given that good images of politicians are hard to come by for we Australians, well images that we can legitimately use, I see no point in throwing away an excellent photograph. --Pete (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we are going over the same ground, and that you are trying to argue that black is actually white...
You reverted two editors (and the first time was with no explanation in either edit summary or talk page). You know exactly who they are, and anyone else can also see the record. WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT springs to mind in this case. I will not be needlessly naming them on your demand.
WWGB said his only concern was repetition of image. My response, including suggestion, to that was previously posted above. He said he has no strong opinion on image choice and offered no preference.
The former image is grainy in thumb size. That is not subjective. It is also underexposed, has poor contrast, poor clarity. These are not subjective characteristics. And you have not established how he is poorly proportioned in the new picture. Proportions being a measurable characteristics at least in relative terms are thus an objective measure.
Perhaps you could name the two editors I supposedly reverted? I reverted IgnorantArmies twice over. If you can find anybody else, please name them. I can't spot the graininess you claim. In my eyes the Coffs image is far superior to the US image in clarity. Howard's hands in the US image are over-large. He looks very odd and unfamiliar. Maybe it's the lighting. The background is full of flags and banners, none of which is Australian. And his face in the US image is very small as a proportion of the total picture - contrast the proportions in Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, all of which emphasise the subject's face rather than flags or hands or signs. --Pete (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The flags issue bothers me as well. As below, there are a couple images in the Commons category which feature Australian flags, which probably serve as an appropriate backdrop for a former PM. Ignorant Armies (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, several points:
I added the present image as I believe it is of much better quality than the "Coffs" image. I know image quality is very subjective, but the Coffs image has poor resolution (other image has 8× more pixels), poor lighting, and is slightly out of focus. There are several images in the John Howard category on Commons; the Coffs image is probably the worst out of any of them. File:Howard2003port.JPG and even File:Johnhoward.jpg would also be acceptable lead images, IMO.
Apologies for not noticing the image already appeared in the article further down. Seeing the same image twice in one article usually irritates me, and thanks to Merbabu for removing it.
Edit summaries which provide no explanation are not good editing practice. Considering two weeks had passed without objection to my first edit, you probably could have taken it to the talkpage after I reverted your reversion.
"Someone with no previous contributions to this article..." Is that relevant?
Basically, I think the best-quality portrait-style photograph should serve as the lead image. I don't think the Coffs photo is the best image that can be found to serve that purpose. Ignorant Armies (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm a big believer in the WP:BRD cycle. There's a word abhayam, which one of the many Sanskrit scholars who inhabit my life tell me is translated as "no fear", though of course as with all Sanskrit words there is more to it than that. If we were timid, we would never fly to the moon, bomb Pearl Harbor, unleash the power of the atom or win fair lady. Boldness or abhayam is what leads us to improve our world. In this case Wikipedia. But some bold strokes are best left unstroked, and when there is opposition, it should be accepted and addressed. Which is where we ware now, and thank you, IgnorantArmies, for coming to discussion.
I don't think that I need to tweet my every action, nor do I think that every edit needs a summary. The action is the message, and when I said "restore image", that's pretty self-explanatory, and when I simply hit the "undo" key, that's another message that is understood in the context. Especially when I made a note on your talk page. You were simply edit-warring until your post above, so I really can't accept point three of your criticism above at full value.
The image resolution is simply not relevant. Both the US and Coffs images are scaled down from their full resolution unless you read Wikipedia on a cinema screen or something. We could have a million pixels on a side and it's still going to be the approximate size of a postage stamp for our readers. I notice that neither you nor Merbabu have seen fit to address the points I made about the US image's aesthetic values apart from disagreeing without details. A photographic portrait of a subject is a key item in this or any other Wikipedia article, and the US image just sucks as a portrait. For reasons already given. Maybe that's the way some people see John Howard - as a distorted image in their heads and the best likeness is not one they can recognise. Nevertheless, if we have a photographic portrait as our lead image, it should be the best one we have, and John Howard the man can stand high or fall short in Wikipedia by our best description of the reality. The images for Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler, for example, portray the subjects well, without providing any sort of editorial commentary.
I mentioned your lack of editing history here because, yes, it is relevant. The portrait has been the subject of keen discussion, edit-wars and compromises over the years, as a roller-coaster ride through the archives demonstrates. The US image has been given the boot before and there has been no push for its return in two years. That's the sort of thing that needs consensus if we are to go back to something long rejected, and I don't see consensus.
I do accept the comments about the Coffs image. It's a little soft and lacking in contrast. But it is an excellent likeness, the background is Australian, and it portrays the subject well. I often look at the official paintings of Prime Ministers in old and new Parliament Houses and they all bring something to the viewer that resonates far more than a simple photograph. We want to showcase the person, not the technical details of exposure and colour key.
The two alternate photographs proposed - and I thank you for digging them up - both have problems. The Pentagon image again looks a little weird in the lighting and if we are to use it as the lead, it goes against the guideline that people in photographs should look into the article. The "Happy Howard" shot also has the wrong orientation - to a far lesser degree - but shows him in a political setting in his dark suit, little Australian map gold badge and the flag behind. If it had a shelf of Hansard volumes in the background it would be the full cliché.
Without a more voices raised in discussion here, I don't think there is consensus for change to the US image. If anybody really wants it, they are going to have to recruit a few like-minded supporters to restage the debate resolved here years ago. --Pete (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It was left for 13 days without any opposition. Your reverted with no explanation. This is poor form no matter how might try to spin, sugar-coat or make up new conventions to explain it. Apart from a few hours following your two reverts, it’s been there 16 days without any opposition apart from yourself.
Can you show where the previous consensus, or at least discussion, was for the coffs image? Note that consensus changes, consensus is not unanimity, and notions of consensus are not be used as a veto by an individual. These points are established and long-accepted in wikipedia.
You acknowledge significant disadvantages of the coffs image (resolution, exposure, focus, etc). These are basic requirements for a good photo as they are in this comparison. They are not mere “technical details” that you can dismiss because you want to. Your one other objective/quantifiable concern - that of proportion - is mere perspective and I do not find it odd at all. In fact, it's normal part of anything we see - it's everywhere and at anytime - and the eye-brain automatically adjusts for it.
If no details to our disagreement with your opinion of aesthetic value have been provided, it is simply because your reasoning is pretty flimsy, and (as you yourself imply) extremely subjective. You just say it’s a better likeness. You don’t provide any reasoning for this, or evidence that others agree, or that is indeed “the way some people see John Howard”. I disagree, and apparently IgnorantArmies, disagree with your assertion of personal taste, and with no solid justification from you, then why should we provide further? Coffs is an appalling picture.
You can try to come up with novel rules and new conventions, logic, etc as much as you like, but explanations of non-vandalistic edits are standard and expected through both convention and guidelines. Further, anyone can see that it is also civil and it helpful to the process. I find it difficult to believe this is even being questioned. It goes to editor behaviour and this is not the space for it. If you still have concerns, then perhaps go to ANI or equivalent. However, the contents of WP:BOOMERANG spring to mind. IN the same vein, trying to tell people that they have to pay their dues on a page before their edits and opinion are equally valued is indeed “irrelevant” and frankly, it’s BS. Again, if you have issues about someone’s behaviour, then this is not the place.
An Australian background is irrelevant. The photo is of the subject. While background is a significant aspect of a photo, the location is not inherently significant in judging it’s appropriateness.
It’s been here over two weeks and no-one apart from yourself has expressed opposition. Your (many) angles on this have been thoroughly and patiently addressed. And, no-one should be “recruiting like-minded supporters”. --Merbabu (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you address the various points made about the images above, please? As for consensus, the Coffs image was here over two YEARS and nobody expressed opposition. The US image has appeared off and on before then, but it has always been replaced after a short time. I'm looking through the talk archives now. You may care to do the same. --Pete (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Which specific points about images to you believe I have not addressed? As I said, we’ve been pretty thorough. It’s not a war of attrition.
The time that an edit has stood is of no significance. Wikipedia is here to be changed. While there are other criteria to be met, the time an edit has stood is immaterial particularly when a subsequent one has been there for two weeks as opposed to 2 minutes. Unless you could direct me to policy that says otherwise. --Merbabu (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'd be equally satisfied with the "Howard Happy" image. It too is superior to the Coffs image for a number of the same reasons discussed. --Merbabu (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
JuliaThanks. I just wondered why you weren't addressing the points made about resolution, colour, distortion and proportions in the US image, especially after I indicated three images in other recent PM articles that were much superior in quality. As I said, I really like the Julia Gillard lead image. It's a great capture. You made the time period an issue, so i compared two years of unchalleged use for one image against several ahort and troubled periods for another. There's a message there, I think. When another editor evades points made, such as my repeated question about the other editors supposedly supporting you, I wonder just how focussed they are on improving the encyclopaedia, and whether they are just disrupting genuine efforts. Most of us have other things to do. Looks like we have broad agreement on the "Happy Howard" picture - my only nitpick is that he's slightly looking out of the article space. --Pete (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Skyring, I have addressed those points specifically. Saying otherwise is frankly bullshit, whether you intend it or not, and you raised the issue of time - saying otherwise doesn't actually make it true. Sorry, I'm not going to do a little dance for you, and if you are going to accuse me of disruption, then take it to ANI or well, drop it. And if you don't like my frank calling of bs, then go take it do ANI or some other board (keeping the content of WP:BOOMERANG in mind, of course). I'll bank on my record and contributions to wikipedia over yours any day. You are the disruption and the waste of time. DOn't like that, go ahead, complain. If like a good troll, you are trying to provoke a response such as this, then go ahead, make your complaint, send me a link to a civility policy, and have your little chuckle. If that makes you feel better. So if you want to talk about disruption, let the board be reminded that I'm not the one with an extensive block log, or a with a recent lucky near miss at topic ban on ANI (which I decided not to comment on). --Merbabu (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't trying to upset you. On the contrary, get you to address the details. It's no sin to be wrong, and if you genuinely thought there were editors supporting your views, but you couldn't identify them, that's fine. Everyone makes mistakes. I just think it's poor form to deflect attention away from the discussion by making personal attacks when they are unwarranted and undeserved. I've just noticed and reverted a change to the lead image at Julia Gillard. Perhaps you'd like to add your input there? --Pete (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
We both know you were trying to upset me, but I've been around long enough to know when to stop playing silly games or dancing to some elses game. Sorry if I'm blunt and don't quite match your faux politeness. Such a mask is easily seen through and doesn't wash with me. I call it trolling, and it's boring and indeed disruptive. If you all this a personal personal attack, then man-up and take it somewhere. Or drop it. If you're enjoying it, or it's more important to get an admission of error, then wikipedia's not the place for you. I'm just calling it as it is. I was wrong on the 2nd reverted editor, but if you want to start counting wrongs in this section, you're going to loose badly, not that I'd expect you do accept any of it. Shall we call it quits or start counting? WP:IDIDNOTHERETHAT springs to mind. --Merbabu (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd much rather see you happy and editing productively than bitter and full of aggression. Seriously. If I've upset you, I apologise. There was no intent in my mind beyond getting to the facts. Life's too short. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Whatever you say. Faux politeness, and faux apology. Just be honest and cut the crap, (although I don't hold high hopes of either from you). I'd rather give you up front "aggression" than your smiling passive aggression. Sorry if I'm surprising you with a good dose of frankness. While we are at it, just restore the pic, not because it's good, but because as you say, life is too short.Seriously. --Merbabu (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You are wrong if you think either is false, but I cannot make you change your honest opinion, and I appreciate your frankness there. I think the "Happy Howard" image seems to have genuine, if lukewarm approval from all parties. It is a pity we cannot use the images from the Parliament website. --Pete (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Old Howard
Query. John Howard was notable for being Prime Minister. Do we show a photo of him as PM, or a current image seven years after? My preference is for the former, and so I've reverted Stemoc's addition. As for image quality, I prefer the former, but neither is a really good shot. Comments? --Pete (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the first shot, the current one, is an excellent shot. The image should be of when the person was most noteable. If someone takes a fantastic picture of Howard just before he were to croak, we wouldn't use it because it's not representative of them during their most noteable part of their life. A PM's image should ideally be one during the time they were PM. Timeshift (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The best images for infoboxes, especially for politicians and celebrities are the ones where they are atleast looking towards the camera. I changed Howard's image not because its old, but because he is literally looking away from the camera, now if he was looking towards his right, it would look ok in the infobox as it would seem like he is looking towards his article. There is an older pic (1997) of him sitting at a desk and it seems more appropriate than the current one...Howard is old, lets just accept that..--Stemoc (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I too prefer the former, especially since the glasses were such a huge part of his image as prime minister. The pictures should represent the time of greatest notability for something like this. I don't think it matters that he isn't looking towards the camera. That's far from essential in a portrait, and the "looking to the right" thing is not a hard and fast rule. Frickeg (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
No need for WP:RECENTISM in photographs. The longstanding image is of excellent quality. The recent one is ok too, but not as good as the previous, IMO. If it is considered illustrative of his post-politics activity, then perhaps it could be included there. -Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Very good point. Not for the infobox, but possibly for a "later life" section. On that point it would be even better to show him performing some activity, such as addressing a cheering crowd of seniors, playing with the grandchildren, line-dancing or whatever it is he does nowadays. Signing copies of his book, perhaps - there must be a few of those around. --Pete (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2014
This edit request to John Howard has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request to John Howard has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
|profession=Lawyer118.138.15.194 (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. His occupation prior to becoming a politician is given as being a solicitor in [5] and other sources in the article. Please provide reliable sources demonstrating that it should be changed to LawyerAlanS (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
An Australian could receive permission to use the post-nominal letters ... From what I recall permission is granted by the offices of Governor General, and the State Governors.
(Unfortunately, no supporting reference has been identified.)
Hence, according to User:The Tepes, an Australian may receive a specific entitlement to use specific postnominal(s).
To use these postnominals on Wikipedia requires a supporting reference to the specific entitlement.
(Unfortunately, no supporting reference for Howard's specific entitlement has been identified.)
a) Thanks. b) ... would Howard not be entitled to the post-nominals? - Dunno. I'll do some homework and reply later. c) FYI, in my opinion, I'd be wary about what a non-Australian government has to say about Australian law/entitlements/etc. Cheers, and thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The Honours System, in theory, places these under the Queen's prerogative. Although, in practice, that's reserved for the Royal Victorian Order etc. And if the official website of the Royal Family and the Monarchy uses it, I would think that of all entities, they'd be the last to misuse titles, honorifics and post-nominals. James(T • C) • 12:55 PM •01:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Your logic is impeccable. But logic does not always apply in such circumstances! As I said:
a) Thanks. b) ... would Howard not be entitled to the post-nominals? - Dunno. I'll do some homework and reply later. c) FYI, in my opinion, I'd be wary about what a non-Australian government has to say about Australian law/entitlements/etc. Cheers, and thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@M.O.X: Hmmm. Your logic is impeccable, but a number of the assumptions on which you base that logic are inaccurate.
As far as I can tell, nothing has changed from the situation described above. viz:
would Howard not be entitled to the post-nominals? - "To use these postnominals on Wikipedia requires a supporting reference to the specific entitlement."
The Honours System, in theory, places these under the Queen's prerogative. - No, it doesn't. Neither in theory, nor in practice. That which is under the Queen's prerogative is well defined in The Australian Honours System, and does not include the use of postnominals.
Given he's not a British subject, it is very relevant. The UK would not be errant on an honours system that ultimately requires Royal Assent for establishment. James(T • C) • 6:32 PM •07:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Huh? What is relevant? The document? I repeat: "That's a UK document, not Australian. UK entitlements are different to and separate from Australian entitlements."
The UK would not be errant on an honours system that ultimately requires Royal Assent for establishment. - Huh? As already stated, that is NOT the case. If you disagree, then please provide a supporting reference. (If you require, I can easily provide numerous supporting references to the contrary. So could you if you wished.) But we are getting off topic, with you trying to go down a rabbit hole that doesn't exist ... Pdfpdf (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Accuracy
The introduction states that Howard worked as a solicitor for 12 years prior to pursuing a career in the parliament in the 1950's. Surely this should read prior to pursuing a career in the parliament in the 1970's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.147.105 (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
My parents Roy and Sister Coral Green owned and ran a private 7 bed cottage maternity hospital from 1944? till 1950.. VALESCO at 36 William St Earlwood is where John Howard was born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.17.103 (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John Howard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to 16 external links on John Howard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John Howard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I don't see the books written by John Howard listed. He has at least two, according to Amazon.com. 1.) His political autobiography: "Lazarus Rising," and a political history of Australia called "The Menzies Era." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.232.174 (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia article about the second longest serving Prime Minister of Australia, the fact that he received a tiny mention in 1,500 pages of ramblings by Breivik is in no way a significant part of his life. Your addition was:
On 26 July 2011, it was revealed that Norwegian mass murderer and right-wing terrorist Anders Behring Breivik praised Howard for his particular stance on Islamic migrants and border security and that the former Prime Minister 'has repeatedly proven to be one of the most sensible leaders in the Western world.'
What is Howard's "particular stance on Islamic migrants", and why is Breivik introduced as a "mass murder and right-wing terrorist" in this context? That sort of commentary should be left to Breivik's article. If this is to be mentioned here (which I am opposed to), he should described as "perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks", not "mass murder and right-wing terrorist". -- Lear'sFool03:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The wiser critics of Howard did not suggest that he was racist, but rather that he was clever at convincing racists and bigots that he supported their position, and therefore, if they were Australians, they would vote for him. He did this by using words that could be interpreted in several ways, and therefore defended by him and his supporters as not racist. It was his way of capturing the One Nation vote. To me, it was one of the most significant aspects of Howard's political style. That someone from the other side of the globe demonstrates this is of interest to me at least. I don't expect a mass audience of Wikipedia editors to even recognise that perspective at this stage, but to me this is VERY significant. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
A discussion of Howard's alleged dog whistling on refugee policy (if supported by reliable sources) is fine by me, but this piece of trivia is entirely the wrong way to include it. -- Lear'sFool06:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
To have a Norwegian mass murderer and terrorist single out and praise a previous PM of Australia is definately significant, but only worth a passing mention in a wider section. Timeshift (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
(To Timeshift) Single out? It's a couple of sentences in a 1,500 page document that refers to hundreds of international conservative figures. -- Lear'sFool06:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
When I say single out I refer to Howard, a previous PM, being singled out from a line of Australian PMs. We are only a country of 20mil who are generally considered to have moderate political ideologies. Timeshift (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I come down on the side of Lear's Fool. This shouldn't be in the article on Howard at all. If notorious criminal X mentioned Mickey Mouse's left foot as an inspiration for his crime should it go in the Mickey Mouse article? No. Donama (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Silly analogy. Mickey Mouse has never (to my knowledge at least) aggressively sought votes from notorious criminals. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
i'm prepared to drop mass murderer and right wing terrorist (i still don't think this violates neutrality - most of the media have been calling him this) but i still think it's significant that the perpetrator in such an historic tragic event spoke so highly of howard. i was merely trying to summarize with "particular stance on Islamic migrants" without using the whole section of quotes or text attributed to howard by breivik but if this was not clear then perhaps they all need to be reproduced. Marxwasright (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
A better analogy is Al Gore and the Unabomber. We don't include the fact that Ted Kaczynski was strongly influenced by Earth in the balance on Gore's page (because Gore had nothing to do with Kaczyinski). The same principle applies here. Howard didn't endorse Breivik's actions, nor have any contact with him before the attack or after. Howard's mention in the manifesto belongs, if at all, on the Breivik page in a long list of other people he quoted. To include it here is a pretty clear BLPvio, IMHO.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
And that's exactly what Howard's approach was designed to achieve. He (and you) can deny that it has anything to do with him. His strategy has worked. I won't try to push the point any more, but I just hope people will think about it and, over time, see how sneakily clever (and nasty) he was. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
i'm not suggesting howard endorsed breivik's actions. i tend do agree with Lear's Fool's discussion of Howard's alleged dog whistling on refugee policy (or any other policies) if they can be substantiated. to my knowledge there have already been a few articles written about (not just howard but) generally speaking government/media responsiblity/accountability or lack there of in the case. Marxwasright (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I see yeti hunter has an obvious bias, perhaps yeti is codeword for another entity which is bigger wiser more ethnic and thus scarier than you?IraqiLion (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have just modified 9 external links on John Howard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 3 external links on John Howard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
An article should be about the subject. You clearly have an agenda to tag everyone you can find with influencing Breivik. And the thing is I would have never known about it had you not made an anonymous and nonsensical comment on my talk page. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Which revealed you as a stalker, now if you really care about this: usually people inspired by and vice versa are mentioned (in an infobox too), what makes this an exception? 86.159.163.253 (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it reveals me as someone interested in the quality of the encyclopedia. Consider me a free editor and learn. An info box should include significant data about a subject. A passing reference made by someone in a rambling message to the world hardly qualifies as significant. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates and tables for short stories, poems and/or book reviews. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
[Untitled]
This article is incorrect in stating John Howard worked with Clayton Utz, John Howard worked with the legal firm Truman, Nelson and Howard for fifteen years prior to his move into full time politics.(Truman, Nelson and Howard was established by my father Peter Truman).
I AM SEEING RED I JUST PUNCHED A HOLE IN THE WALL WHY! CANT! I! EDIT! THIS! I! HAVE! AN! ACCOUNT!!!!! HOW FUCKING RACIST IS THIS FUCKING SITE?!?!??!?!?! YOU WANNA FUCK WITH ME!!!!
I'm not certain of the terminology, but I think reason you can't edit is that you're still seen as a new editor here. You'll note that your name still appears in red in article histories. You need to have made some minimum number of edits elsewhere before you can edit protected articles like this one. That applies to all new users.
As for your perspective on Howard, if you look carefully at those sources you will see that you could not use them to say that Howard was anti-Muslim. You could use them to say that many accused him of using anti-Muslim sentiment among parts of Australian society to improve his electoral chances. He was a clever politician. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Listen to my words, you are not a clever person, howard was a stupid racist, this is all common knowledge, how can you say he was clever with his statements that you will see if you bothered to read the links my brother?? When does an accusation become reality? Does it take a european christian controlled newspaper to dicate what is real and what is speculation on wikipeida? Are you seriously saying that commentary from a Muslim only constitutes opinion whereas the herald sun and new york times constitute truth? if you somehow think I am mistaken do feel free to make an attempt to point this out but you will not be able toIraqiLion (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
HiLo48, I am sorry, but this subject has me very passionate. And Yeti Hunter, that was hardly constructive, please refrain from making personal attacks. I intend to add this information to this article and I am willing to make a compromise in which the information is toned down to make him seem less bad, but I digress, he was most definetely anti-Islamic, and at the very least he was 100% racist. His handling of the Tampa boat affair proves this beyond a doubt. I am new to this website this is true, if I am breaking a rule could you please help me? Thankyou =)IraqiLion (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'll try a little more. What we write about people here can't be your own opinion. It has to reflect what the sources say. And they didn't say that Howard was anti-Muslim. They said that some people claimed that he made use of existing anti-Muslim feelings in society to enhance his electoral chances. That's the most extreme thing you could possibly get away with saying, and you would have to reference it back to those sources very clearly. I personally don't like Howard at all, and happen to agree with those sources, but that's irrelevant here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
If you don't like howard either why are we fighting when we know the truth of his racism? Why would you not help me and hold me down? You are lying to encourage my behaviour and get me blocked, you are not the first to do this on this website. On the off chance you are on the side of truth and justice (I will not be pulled into little games) you must help me find sources. The ICC affair is very good as many world leaders openly stated that his racism stopped them from allowing him to be the chairman. If I find a source to do with this and I add it, as multiple world leaders opinions of him, not as truth but as important peoples opinions will you try to stop me? We must work together to stop some aussie from doing what he did again, what with statements that support a xenophobic popeIraqiLion (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm guessing that by ICC you mean the cricket body, not the criminal court. Yes, it would be interesting to see if there were precise quotes of what other countries' leaders said. Perhaps they could be used. See what you can find. (Right now I'm going to bed.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hahaha, yes of course I forgot about the International Criminal Court =) Ironic, that Howard may get arrested in the future for his involvement in the Iraq war by one ICC and banished from being leader of another lol no I'm only joking =)IraqiLion (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Any attempt to load this article with (tiresome) "Howard is a racist" opinions will have to be carefully balanced against the record of Howard as the a PM who ran the (to that time) largest and most diverse immigration intakes in Australian history. Any attempt to suggest that supporting the wars against the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, or instigating new national security laws in the face of terrorist bomb threats in the aftermath of September 11 amounts to being "anti-Muslim" will struggle not to collapse under the weight of their own il-logic.Observoz (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
This character has been (mercifully) indefinitely blocked. Can we now move on, and let's not waste any more time. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
This thoroughly partisan biography does not acknowledge that Howard was a divisive and disingenuous character in Aust politics with only tiny legislative achievements given that he enjoyed the uncritical support and endorsements of all mainstream media throughout his career as well as a majority in both houses of Parliament. Worst of all, a substantial body of legal and public opinion holds that in committing Australia to the invasion of Iraq, knowingly on the basis of blatant lies and selective use and exaggeration of evidence, Howard committed a war crime entailing the deaths of many tens of thousands of Iraqis and which, consistent with the unethical journalistic support he still enjoys, has been covered up and never formally investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Falkingham (talk • contribs) 06:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Done Welcome and thanks for contributing. Celestra (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
Partly done: Technically, he was a Solicitor. so I have added that instead of lawyer - Arjayay (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. His occupation prior to becoming a politician is given as being a solicitor in [5] and other sources in the article. Please provide reliable sources demonstrating that it should be changed to Lawyer AlanS (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)