Talk:John Howard

National Textiles

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

• I recall also that it was a big issue - lots of sources too [1]--Matilda ^talk 07:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Add it, Blnguyen. --Lester 08:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is an issue worth covering - it got considerable coverage at the time and raised considerable questions about favouritism, given that other companies had failed at around the same time and did not get favourable government attention. Orderinchaos 16:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if occasionally, just occasionally, you guys found content that was favourable to JH to add to the article. --Surturz (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How about you find favourable content and add it then? This encyclopedia is not here to make you personally feel warm and fuzzy. Content is king, so quit complaining and get to it already. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive

• For the debate about war crimes and associated RfC see Talk:John Howard/Archive 14 Talk:John Howard/Archive 15 Talk:John Howard/Archive 16 --Matilda ^talk 23:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

POV tag Aug 2008

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

It belongs in Howard Government, if anywhere (although public opposition to the war is already documented there). The protests were not about JH himself, nor were they protests about his personal relationship with GWB. Whoever added that text should find a more appropriate place to include them. The text does not belong in the "Relationship with GWB" section. --Surturz (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to moving the comments, I have an objection to nothing being mentioned in this article on the subject at all. It is not merely a function of the Howard government - although I believe it belongs there too, as I have said repeatedly above it is personal to Howard too and a major feature of the later years of his term as prime minister. I am not sure that the link with Bush is that tenuous. Their relationship predated the war but Howard's support of Bush's actions obviously strengthened the personal relationship as well as US Australian bilateral relations. However, I am not concerned if it appears in the section with Bush or elsewhere, I am concerned that it appears nowhere. There are plenty of other omissions too but let's continue to deal with this one. --Matilda ^talk 21:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

While Howard Government article should serve to have detailed description of his Government, it needs not be used as a pretext to move all criticism from here thus unbalancing the main article Howard was the head of the government, thus any criticism of his government is certainly applicable to him. I dont see any problem in having some important informations overlapping in two articles. In fact, I am suggesting to make a criticism section in this article just like in Manmohan Singh (I am not claiming that this is the best example though) which should detail (or list) all criticisms he received during his career. Quote from WP:NPOV, All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. Docku^Hi 21:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A criticism section is a disaster. Sorry to be blunt. It’s like trivia lists. It just becomes a dumping ground for any one with an axe to grind. Even worse for the axe-grinders, there would have to be a separate section for praise, of equal length of course, for that “balance” notion and due weight. I’ve got a headache already thinking about the opportunity for edit wars, rfc’s, and failed mediation requests.

Rather, if there is criticism for a political personality – and my threshold for inclusion is clearly higher than some here – then it should be well-written and interwoven into the article’s prose at the appropriate subject section. There’s even a tag/template we could pull to encourage they be incorporated into the article. --Merbabu (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

It sounds more like a personal attack. I would not respond to it. I guess reporting is better. Docku^Hi 22:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A personal attack? I don't understand. Who are you suggesting is attacking who? Please explain. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I quote from above "axe-grinders" and "usual suspects of reactionary and combative editors this page attracts (apparently representing all apparent POVs)". Docku^Hi 22:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I’ve asked to avoid trench warfare, requested cooperation, and suggested a middle ground position. Now, you want to report me for a personal attack? I think you need to re-read it. --Merbabu (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain what all these mean "axe-grinders" and "usual suspects of reactionary and combative editors this page attracts (apparently representing all apparent POVs). Thanks. Docku^Hi 23:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I could - on your talk page. Any comments on the 2nd paragraph? - ie, the suggestions on content. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. That means, the first paragraph was? Docku^Hi 00:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Am a bit busy right now so cannot respond in detail but I apologise if it looks like my reaction ot jsut one edit. It isn't. It is the response to a very long discussion (see above while not archived) and we are getting no where. I ahve suggested taking it to a sub-page. I have agreed to several compromise edits. I have responded to the RfC above. This is not a one-on-one discussion. At present the article is unbalanced - I do not think I am the only one to hold that view. The tag is calling the unbalanced article unbalanced - no more no less. --Matilda ^talk 00:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK no worries. I've been bold and moved it down to the section involved. If you don't like this, pls revert and I won't revert it. I hope you leave it though. :-) (actually, there is somewhere a tag that applies to a section) I too am meant to be busy but will try to look into it more soon. --Merbabu (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Further and very generally, the stalemates here a sourced not so much in all the different (perceived) POV's amongst us editors, but what I see as fundamental disagreements here over what a wikipedia article should be. It appears that for some, listing criticisms and justifying the opinion’s notability against a personality is necessary to maintain NPOV (although, on a tangent, where is the corresponding praise for “balance”?). Whereas for me, and a few others (possibly Orderinchaos for one?) this seems to be particularly whiny and bratty way to write an article. I would rather see a cohesive essay style article of prose that just states what happened and minimises (or even banishes) all the commentary that is insisted upon for “balance” and NPOV. The suggested Don Chipp article is a beautiful example provided earlier of what could be done. There was another biography offered recently as an example of what to aspire to. who was it? Orderinchaos – when are you going to provide your long promised re-write of this horrible article? ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally am not particularly interested in merely listing criticisms, happy to take on board any attempt to incorporate some facts - positive and negative. Hapyt to discuss structure too. My attempt to add something resulted in personal attacks here and at WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:BLP, WP:3RR and an RfC (above disguised as a policy RfC). We haven't even got to the fundamental disagreement or agreement of what a wikipedia article should be - though it is possible that that underlying issue may account for some of the difference when it comes to the trivia. We argue to the point of no resolution sentence by sentence in a totally nonconstructive and non-collaborative way. --Matilda ^talk 01:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - there has been, at times, also considerable consensus across political editing bias. The creation of the Howard Govt article (for which you were largely responsible) got almost universal support (as it should have). We need a few more masterstrokes like that. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, if editors want to attack JH in his own BLP, please at least do it with facts. Don't like the Iraq War? Quote how many Australian troops died, how much it cost, what international sanctions against Australia were incurred, FACTS of that sort. Hunting around for suitably eminent Howard-detractors to quote, or allegations of War Crimes when it is patently clear that JH is not a war criminal, is wasting everyone's time. What war HASN'T been protested by a portion of the population of the country waging it? The protest is not fit for inclusion. --Surturz (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well I have tried again per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle using the BBC ref cited above. I note Surturz's "constructive criticism" in particular that referring to specific detractos is unhelpful. However, I don't think the issue is the "cost" - "good" and "bad" wars cost. The lack of opposition to the intervention in East Timor wasn't because of cost - it was because it was (by and large) seen as the right thing to do. The public's perception of the intervention in Iaq was not similarly characterised. Matilda ^talk 04:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'e made it clear that like Surturz i don't support the digging up of "notable" detractors to provide criticism for "balance". Instead, the majority Australian opposition to the war should, and already is quoted using an opinion poll. That's more notable than, say, the former PM of Malaysia slagging off (once again) the Australian PM. The majority opposition is, as Matilda points out, the big difference between the East Timor exercise and iraq. --Merbabu (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm - just to clarify - I could not see anything on the majority Australian opposition to the war should, and already is quoted using an opinion poll. other than what I just added so I read it that you (Merbabu) support the addition?--Matilda ^talk 05:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was less than clear: a million other things in my head today as I spend too much time away from my work duties.

My point being, IMO stating that the majority of Australians apparently did not support the war (or our involvement) is a much better way to provide “criticism” or “balance” than by quoting the opinion of detractors, whether this criticism be war criminal petitions to the ICC or Mahathir who has a long history of criticising Australia, its government, and the West in general. ie, such criticism from Mahathir can almost always be guaranteed, such that both sides of Aust government and commentators tend to ignore it - or even ridicule it - it becomes, in the eys of many, almost worthless.

That Australians largely appeared to have been against the war but Howard went in anyway is very important, and makes the other criticisms look trivial. Your inclusion of poll data to support this point was a small masterstroke – it contributes towards a much more mature article in comparison to a listing of “notable” criticisms and commentators. Thanks --Merbabu (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

2007 election section - needs trimming

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

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

About to archive and close off RfC

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

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

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

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

Iraq War

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

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

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

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

• • IMO BBC writing about Australia can be very sketchy. They seem to base their stories on articles in other newspapers. Better to get a reference to the Australian newspaper they are quoting. I'm not against home papers FWIW. I do think many editors fail to realise that although ABC, BBC, etc are WP:RS, the quality of journalism can vary vastly from story to story depending on whether it is a front page article, opinion article, a puff piece, etc. If poll numbers are quoted without quoting the name of the poll, it is probably not a reputable pollster. --Surturz (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Both the BBC and ABC get things wrong. If, on checking, specific information from a usually reliable source is found to be incorrect or unreliable, it can't be somehow made correct or reliable by pointing to the track record of the media outlet. If something is incorrect, it's incorrect. That 70% figure seems way too high, and I'd like to see some polling figures from a reliable source, such as Gallop or Morgan, rather than an unspecified source, which could well be an internet or radio poll. Incidentally, I must congratulate Matilda on her foresight in storing this material for five years, judging by the access date. --Pete (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflicted) Hmmm - you and David Flint http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1658 - possibly need the parameters of what you are going to agree is a reliable poll but ... anyway

Url, publisher & date	quote+ comment if any
SMH 20 March 2003	~
Australian article (2006)	THE Government is sticking by its troop commitment to Iraq despite the findings of a poll that 84 per cent of respondents believed the US-led invasion had done nothing to lessen the threat of terrorism. The Government says the poll was skewed to ignore the risks of surrendering to terrorism. Labor used the figures to renew its criticism of the Howard Government's decision to join the US-led invasion of Iraq, describing it as a "spectacular foreign policy failure". The poll, conducted by the Lowy Institute for International Policy, found 84 per cent of respondents believed the war in Iraq had done nothing to lessen the threat of terrorism. The survey of more than 2000 people found 67 per cent disagreed with the claim that the US-led invasion would lead to the spread of democracy in the Middle East. And nearly all – 91 per cent – said the war had worsened American relations with the Muslim world. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer dismissed the findings and accused the Lowy Institute of structuring the poll to get a particular result.
ABC in 2004	A new poll published today shows Australia's continued involvement in Iraq appears to be damaging the Howard Government and Labor would win a Federal election. The AC Nielsen Poll published in today's Age and Sydney Morning Herald shows despite a positive reception for the Government's Budget, support for the Coalition has slipped to 39 per cent while the ALP has increased to 43 per cent. After preferences Labor is 12 points in front at 56 to 44 per cent. The poll also asked about support for the Iraq conflict. Sixty-three per cent are against war, up 12 points since the question was asked eight months ago.
The Age in February 2003	Matilda comment: frames the responses in an interesting way but in Feb 2003 I don't think the Govt could say it had support no matter which way you frame the answers unless the UN supported the action.
SMH Jan 2003	Matilda comment: helps with the trend.
ABC in Sept 2003	... 26 per cent of voters believe Mr Howard deliberately misled them about the reasons for going to war. Mr Crean says it is also significant that 42 per cent of those polled believe Mr Howard unintentionally misled them about the war, because he was misled by others. Matilda comment: re AC Nielsen poll published in Fairfax newspapers
SMH 18 March 2003	another poll shows voters still strongly against a war in Iraq without UN support. Newspoll found support for a war against Iraq with UN support up from 56 per cent to 61 per cent.
Gallup International 2003	Matilda comment: 47% figure probably comes from - before the war
SMH Sep 2003	68 per cent of respondents believed Mr Howard had misled the Australian public about the reasons for going to war, and 51 per cent believed the war was not justified.
4 Corners (ABC) Iraq chronology	in early MarchA poll finds that the level of Australian opposition to a US-led war on Iraq has grown to 59 per cent, its highest in six months. The poll also finds that 64 per cent of Australians would support a war with UN approval. Most significantly though as at March 26 The Sydney Morning Herald reports that according to Newspoll, 50 per cent of Australians now support Australia's involvement in the war, up from 25 per cent only two weeks ago. Opposition to the war has steadily waned, from a high of 73 per cent to 42 per cent. Matilda comment: I think this is my preferred source

What does anybody else think? --Matilda ^talk 02:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the figures change over time. Once we'd invaded and found that the big thing about the WMD was that Saddam didn't actually have any left, but wanted people to think he might, then support dropped. Before we went in, it was still reasonably plausible and Saddam was a bastid anyway. Giving post-war polls while talking about the decision to invade skews the picture. --Pete (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think if we are going to quote polls, the best would be to quote numbers from a reliable poll conducted immediately after the war started, and one after it was realised that there were no WMDs (or a current poll). Also, the poll question should be a broad 'do you support the war' not a question like 'do you think the war will reduce terrorism'. Did you ever find the name of the original poll quoted by the BBC? --Surturz (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The actual Newspoll is available for download from the newspoll.com.au site (sorry I can't work out how to link direct to the poll - search for 'Iraq' in 'Opinion Polls'). By my reading, total for involvement was 45% (not 50%), opposition to the war (without UN support) dropped from a high of 78% (not 73%) down to 47% (not 42%). However, the key number I feel is that, before the war, 57% 56% supported a war against Iraq if it was sanctioned by the UN. So there was not majority opposition to a war against Iraq at the time Howard went to war. So the real story is that before war was declared, there was broad support for the war, and once it was discovered there were no WMDs, then support for the war plummeted. I think this also shows how we need to be very careful citing newspapers/ABC when they recycle stats from other newspapers. I'm not sure WP policy on citing newspoll, I am not sure we are supposed to quote primary sources. --Surturz (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC) EDIT: fixed mistakes on my part --Surturz (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• outdent Quoting from polls and interpreting the data yourself would breach WP:NOR. Surturz queried the BBC as a reliable source and asks what poll were they quoting ... I have suggested above that a gallup poll seems likely since at least one of the figures corresponds with a gallup poll (see third last dot above) - I cannot google up other gallup poll figures and their archives don't seem that accessible. However this poll referred to before the war so I now don't think Gallup was necessarily what the BBC used - since I don't know what they used I cannot comment. However, the poll figures used by the BBC seem consistent with the 4 corners figures quoting the SMH in late March 2003 which used Newspoll - a recognised pollster. See my last dot point above. That source was quite clear - opposition to the war was at a high of 73%. 4 Corners hould be a reliable source - and so should the BBC.

I am finding the questioning of the sources to be just a little tendentious - there seems to be a number of sources agreeing that opposition was high - pick your source and stay away from original research. I believe 4 Corners would count as a reliable source by some standards - say for example Orderinchaos said on this talk page in relation to the ABC The ABC put a lot of things through their newswire that aren't verified to their usual standards. I catch errors there regularly, they're usually very responsive to email though when I contact them. If Lateline or 7:30 Report do a story on it, that's another matter - that would suggest it's been through the processes and checks. I would say 4 Corners fits into the latter category. --Matilda ^talk 05:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • For figures before the war - once again from the 4 Corners ref - at March 12 before the invasion A poll finds that the level of Australian opposition to a US-led war on Iraq has grown to 59 per cent, its highest in six months. The poll also finds that 64 per cent of Australians would support a war with UN approval. The invasion did not have UN approval. --Matilda ^talk 05:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Skyring's and Surturz's concerns that we must compare apples with apples are fair enough - ie, no point in juxtaposing the decision to go war with a recent poll, and we do indeed need to be clear whether we are talking about a UN-supported war and the actual non-UN supported war. However, I do believe that Matilda's post immediately above addresses these concerns well. I too think the reliability concerns are a bit of a stretch, but I'm happy that at least the result of the query has been extra vigilance. --Merbabu (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • I'm not trying to be tendentious, I am genuinely questioning the validity of the numbers. You seem keen to show that there was majority opposition to a war in Iraq before the invasion, and I am challenging that assertion. There may have been majority support to a war that was not sanctioned by the UN, but that is a completely different thing to saying that the majority of Australians were against a war in Iraq immediately prior to the invasion. I think I have demonstrated that the 4corners timeline reference should be corroborated by another source; 4corners is quoting SMH who quotes newspoll. It's Chinese Whispers - the original source does not match the final quotation. Can we at least find the SMH article quoted by the 4corners timeline? --Surturz (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I am saying the BBC is a reliable source, Surturz queried the poll figures. I have provided poll figures which are largely in line with the BBC figures. Anyway some SMH sources :

Url, publisher & date	quote+ comment if any
26 March 2003	According to Newspoll, 50per cent of Australians now support Australia's involvement in the war, up from 25per cent only two weeks ago. Opposition to the war has steadily waned, from a high of 73per cent to 42per cent this week. Matilda comment:This compares though not identically with the BBC report A poll commissioned last week found that 47% of respondents were against military action compared to 70% the previous week.
1 April 2003	Support for the war in Iraq has grown substantially more than a week after the bombing began, but the largest proportion of Australians still oppose the conflict, a new poll has found. A national Herald-ACNielsen survey conducted at the weekend found that 44 per cent of people now supported the war without United Nations backing. However, the Prime Minister, John Howard, warned last night that the most difficult part of the campaign lay ahead. "A street campaign in Baghdad could well be very costly, just how costly and precisely what might precede that I am not going to speculate," he said. The 44 per cent of people surveyed who said they supported the war has climbed sharply from just 6 per cent in January. At the same time, opposition to the war without UN backing has almost halved from 92 per cent in January to 48 per cent this week. Of those against the war, 27per cent said they were opposed because it did not have UN backing and 21 per cent said Australia should not be involved at all. .... etc
SMH in September	Almost 70 per cent of Australians believe John Howard misled them on his case for war in Iraq, a new poll shows. ... the poll shows that most Australians did not believe the Government was justified in joining the war in Iraq. A third of the Coalition's voters counted themselves among those who did not believe the campaign to be justified.
Another April 1 SMH article	Voters remain deeply uneasy about Australia's involvement in the war in Iraq. The Herald-ACNielsen poll today shows that just a week since the United States-led invasion began, without a single Australian military casualty and with a surge of sympathy for the Australian troops fighting in it, more voters oppose Australia's participation than support it.

my bolding --Matilda ^talk 06:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I was looking at the wrong column. --Surturz (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just to confirm - this issue is now resolved - everyone is happy with the BBC ref and the figures it quotes? To my mind they seem to reconcile adequately with any other ref I have been able to pull and I have looked for polling references without prejudice - ie I was quite happy to find a poll to say that Australians were happy with the idea of invasion without UN endorsement - didn't find it. --Matilda ^talk 07:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No, I'm still not happy because the nature of the 70% against the war is misrepresented (it wasn't against the war generally, it was against an unsanctioned war). I'd prefer the SMH references that actually name the poll used. I'd be happy if you mention that the opposition was to an unsanctioned war, which is what happened of course. I agree 70ish% people polled were against the action Howard instigated. But to give the impression that 70ish% were against invading Iraq at all is not correct. The actual case is that there was a substantial minority (25ish%) that wanted the UN to sanction the invasion. --Surturz (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem is we (Wikipedia editors) don't know what people in Australia think so for all we know the source could be right but really we are not going to make everyone happy on this issue. I've stayed out of this but I now feel that it can be added back in since it's now sourced. Bidgee (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to read people's minds, and I never removed the text inserted by Matilda (?) due to WP:NOR concerns (side note: I feel WP:NOR applies to the article text only, not the talk page). If we don't want to clutter the article with tedious definitions of UN-sanctioned vs non-UN-sanctioned war, I would be happy with %against figures for immediately prior and immediately after war started. The 92% down to 48% number quoted above, for example. --Surturz (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Haven't got time now - will fix it tomorrow and will mention that Howard was still popular personally as leader in Sep despite opposition using some of the sources above --Matilda ^talk 08:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with quoting poll results that aren't linked to a known question or methodology, unless we include caveats to that effect. You can get any result you want on polls. --Pete (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Newspoll is quite reputable. I'm surprised SMH quoted it though, newspoll is The Australian's pollster of choice. --Surturz (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• outdent The suggestion that we don't quote polls is to me not sensible. The polls are being quoted by secondary sources and quite clearly say that there was not support for the war in the way the invasion was carried out. it is a significant point. It isn't just one poll that assert this - but multiple polls.

I think though that this SMH article from Sep 03 is interesting because people are still against the war but they are for the coalition government despite 51% still answering no to the question posed by AC Nielsen (reputable pollster) Thinking about the war in Iraq and its outcome, do you believe the war was justified? ... the polling found... Australia's involvement in the campaign has done little damage to Mr Howard's Government. ... Mr Howard leads Mr Crean as preferred prime minister 64 per cent to 24 per cent and the Coalition has increased its two-party preferred lead over Labor to 52-48.

I am happy to put that in - it just won't be today as I have domestic disasters on my hands somebody else can do it though :-) --Matilda ^talk 21:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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

John Howard article - the future

If a controversial addition is made to an article, and I don't think it belongs there, based on wikipolicy, I'll restore to the status quo and it can be discussed properly. For an established article like John Howard, there is usually no urgent need to include new material, particularly if it relates to events years in the past. Take a day or so, find consensus, everyone is happy. I direct you to this edit by Docku, where he proposes adding new material and it is discussed. I also note WP:EDIT, saying, "All editors are encouraged to be bold, but there are several things that a user can do to ensure that major edits are performed smoothly. Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page." There also used to be (there may still be, but I can't find it) a guideline along the lines that you should try to write something that others will accept, even if they don't agree with you. Try to write for the other guy. I don't think you or I are going to leave the project, so we should try to get along with each other. I'm as sick of the John Howard article being a focus for conflict as you are. --Pete (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I for one question whether Lyn Allison really presented a paper to the ICC. I asked for confirmation on the Democrats' website and received no reply. Immediate reversion is the only way to show a lack of consensus. If controversial text is added, and people leave it there, then the inserters will make the case that 'it has been there for weeks, why are you removing it'? --Surturz (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't think Lyn Allison had much to do with it either. As for reverting, I don't think there's anything in the article that I really object to, though I'm sharing concerns about poll figures. In fact, i very rarely revert material on this article. Most stuff I either agree with or don't have enough disagreement to bother with. Just check the edit history. Most additions remain untouched by me. --Pete (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Jam-packed"? I can think of only two little things in there that I objected to strenuously, and consensus went against me. Wikipedia isn't my personal creation, it's not something I own, or even have a particularly big stake in, so if opinion goes the other way, I'm not going to mind. I wanted sunflowers in the communal garden, the other gardeners preferred petunias. Big deal. --Pete (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I and others provided copious amounts of evidence that the ICCAction stuff was the work of a single individual and that the ABC article was incorrect. It was ignored. Requests for additional references confirming that the ICCAction submission were ignored. --Surturz (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Indeed. But for it to be true, all editors need to show more respect for points 1 and 4. We can't get around that. It's pointless saying which needs to come first - we just need to make the chicken and egg appear together. --Merbabu (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Like the disclaimer by Merbabu, it is really general and not aimed at anyone. I agree that any unreferenced material has to be immediately removed by anyone who sees it first. But any other relevant information if it follows the three following wikipedia policies WP:Verifiability, WP:RS and WP:NOR do not require to be removed as urgently. If someone can not establish themselves whether the information follows these requirements, they just leave it for someone else to take care of it. (After all, there are enough editors who are following this page).

When such an information is added which follows the abovementioned policies (I hope this can stay for a short time atleast a day, just a random number) and if some of the editors are not happy with that because they believe it violates other wp policies including WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN, WP:REDFLAG or any other policies, they just need to start a discussion and convince the others why they think that it should be removed because it violates the above policies. (One more way is to ask the editor who added it and ask for an explanation or remove it himself. Giving some reasonable amount of time is acceptable atleast until the editor makes another edit elsewhere. After all, the burden of evidence lies with the person who adds it) If it is really a clear violation of any of these policies, convincing would be easy and thus the edit will then be removed immediately. If there are strong support on both sides (inclusion and exclusion), it more than likely means that the violation is borderline and IMO could be reworded to make sure that it adheres to wp policies. Well, of course, the information can totally be abandoned if no rewording can make it possible to achieve the requirements.

I want to make it clear here that I am not starting another discussion here for inclusion of war crime allegation though similar information is still staying in Tony Blair article, I am just presenting alternative way of thinking which existed and still exists. Well, In this particular case, In stead of having added this information AttemptedIn June 2008 a legal brief was sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging Howard committed a war crime while Prime Minister by sending troops to Iraq. A similar brief was also submitted by a UK based group against Tony Blair. The Australian brief was prepared by an alliance of peace activists, lawyers, academics and politicians, including the leader of the Australian Democrats, Lyn Allison.[70] we could have also added the concern by Surturz. Alternative:In June 2008 a legal brief was sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging Howard committed a war crime while Prime Minister by sending troops to Iraq. A similar brief was also submitted by a UK based group against Tony Blair. The Australian brief was prepared by an alliance of peace activists, lawyers, academics and politicians, including the leader of the Australian Democrats, Lyn Allison. However, there are copious amounts of evidence that the ICCAction stuff was the work of a single individual and that the ABC article was incorrect or add additional information and tweak it anyother way to have achieved fair presentation.

What happens when something like this gets added? Well, it is really a compromise so all editors feel like their opinions and concerns have been listend to. Second, we are absolutley not misleading the readers because we are provinding all the information. Third, after sometime passes by, the information will either get strenghthened or weakened by additional associated instances, therefore will stay if strengthened or will be thrown out if weakened as a trivia and even the ones who supported the inclusion may not object to it anymore.

It is my simple humble opinion. It may have flaws and I assume responsibility for it and will not hesitate to apologise if mistakes are found. Like I mentioned, I remind all again that I am not starting a discussion thread for the inclusion for war crimes, it was just an alternate way of thinking which can be ignored by anyone who reads it. It can also be considered as a general information related to future editorial process in the article. I also must note that I have repeated some of the points made by others albeit with different words. Atleast, we agree on some issues on a positive note. Docku^Hi 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama comments

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

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

ICC Action

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

Sorry, negative information not allowed here. Just kidding. :) Docku^Hi 16:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research confirms what the secondary sources said. So the ABC was accurate all along.--Lester 23:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No. The point on which the ABC was demonstrably wrong was in the timing of the submission. The ICCAction Group's own website gives a date of submission later than the ABC story. I think I've pointed it out several times already, but it's worth doing so again:

• the story was wrong, in which case it's not a reliable source, or
• the submission had been made twice previously and rejected by the ICC both times, in which case it's not a story.

Do we have a reliable source stating that the submission has been made and accepted by the ICC? No. --Pete (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Skyring(Pete), I previously posted 14 online references (now archived), including a reference from every single major news organisation in Australia. Are you still arguing on the grounds that the submission was never made, or that your own original research proves every major news organisation to be wrong?--Lester 00:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research not required. The ICC Action Group's own website says: We wish to advise the 62 page ‘Brief of Evidence’ document to the ICC Chief Prosecutor, which we feel builds the prima facie case ‘alleging’ that John Winston Howard has committed war crimes; was sent to The Hague 14 June 2008. On 15 August 2008, the ICC advises the Brief Of Evidence: Case 425/07 to be ‘now under analysis’. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the site says that submission was made on 14 June and all the media reports are prior to that date, then a story saying that the submission was made have got to be in error. Of course, using the ICC Action Group website as a reliable source is really going out on a limb. We could find all manner of fruit and nuts on that limb. --Pete (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The inconsistency in date could just be a typo, who knows. Well, the fact that lyn Allison did support the submission confirms the story was not wrong. The event is notable even if ICC rejects the application. The issue is simple: include or exclude... Docku^Hi 01:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably about the difference you'd expect from when it is placed in the post, to when the document arrives in The Hague. Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources (ie, news reports) rather than primary sources, which is original research. From what I can gather, Skyring(Pete) is the only editor who is arguing that the submission didn't take place (others debated the notability of the content, which is a separate matter). If we're going to argue that every single major news organisation is wrong, then we could rip out most of the Australian content from Wikipedia.--Lester 01:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is saying the submission didn't take place. Where did you get that idea? And no, it's not any sort of postal delay. The ICC Action Group says the submission took place on 14 June, which is well after any media stories about the event. The IAG gave a still later date for their report that it had been received by the ICC, and now they give an August date for its acceptance for analysis as "425/07". On this precise point, the media stories are clearly wrong, when they say it was submitted on 2 June. I've pointed this out several times previously here, raised a WP:BLP notification and based a RfC on it, but you must not have read my contributions, despite responding to them. --Pete (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "The event is notable even if ICC rejects the application". Disagree strongly with this. It is only notable if it is accepted. It is probably notable on Lyn Allison's page, though. --Surturz (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting how we disagree with each other. Docku^Hi 12:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Very unusual situation, Skyring(Pete). You agree with the basic fact (previously added to the article) that the document was submitted to the ICC, and you agree that the document was submitted in the month of August. However, you disagree with information that was not in the article, about the day of the month the document was submitted. You use this disputed point about the day of the month, to say that every media organisation in Australia is an unreliable source to use as a reference for the basic information that you agree was factual. Did I get that wrong? --Lester 04:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You need a source to say it was submitted. The only sources supplied predate the submission. Speculation has no place in Wikipedia. Not that the submission is worth including in the article anyway. --Pete (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Publications

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

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

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

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

Hi Desertpea. Well, the Howard article isn't supposed to be a privately owned article to be only edited by existing editors. It's unfortunate that some have given you the impression that only they are allowed to add content here. This is supposed to be the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, including you. However, you must provide a reference for every point you add. You can use the Wikipedia:Citation templates to format your reference. Add the reference at the end of the sentence or paragraph. Happy editing. --Lester 03:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with Indigenous Australia

Not sure if this has already been discussed, but the "Relationship with Indigenous Australia" section consistently refers the "Howard government". Shouldn't that content be in the "Howard government" article? --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)