Talk:John Howard/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Is this common?

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=17666 - nice picture... Timeshift 03:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw Beattie's wikipedia picture on the news a couple of weeks ago on a hate pamphlet by one of the amalgamation campaign groups, I think the pamphlet compared him to a nazi and a communist. Wiki Townsvillia n 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirribilli House

Is there a reason why Kirribilli House and The Lodge aren't mentioned in the First term section? That was a significant issue then and still is in a way now his children are all adult. Wiki Townsvillia n 08:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I think it was minor compared to the points mentioned in that section, though something could be added. Peter Ballard 12:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tracksuit

Could we get a picture of him supporting the Socceroos wearing his green & gold tracksuit? Could we also get some statistics on where he jogs in the morning? Sven the llama 02:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

planning on a bit of stalking are you? :) Wiki Townsvillia n 03:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Um collecting statistics on where he jogs would be OR. If you want to do something like that, try a blog or something. And personally given the current climate in Australia I would take great care collecting something like that. Nil Einne 11:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous affairs

This, in the light of recent events, deserves its own section. I certainly don't feel up to writing it. . . Slac speak up!

As is usually the case in this sort of thing, I suggest waiting a couple of weeks for perspective. On the other hand, it could be good to expand on his handling of it in his first 2 terms (Wik is hardly mentioned, though it does have its own article). Peter Ballard 09:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Can someone get his signature, like they have for UK and USA leaders?

It's not a high priority. Slac speak up! 07:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Rt Hon"

John Howard is NOT a "Right Honourable". For some reason, "Prestor John" (who deleted my message last time I pointed this out) and "Socialdemocrats" (who added "Rt Hon" in the first place) seem to think that this is not true. I really don't want to register at Wikipedia, but I don't appreciate when I bring up a valid point that is deleted as "anon vandalism". This is why nobody takes Wikipedia seriously as a reliable source. John Howard is "The Hon John Howard". He IS NOT "The Rt Hon". It is a fact, get over it. The last PM to be "The Rt Hon" was Fraser, no other PM has been a member of Privy. I can't change this as the article is protected, so would somebody else?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.150.137 (talk • contribs)

As per my edit comment, done. Wikipedia, although not as accurate as it could be, can be improved by more editors ensuring it is correct. Join up and assist and it will be increasingly correct. It may not be fully correct, but is to some extent taken seriously, and in some cases is the only place to find the information. Template: Politics of Australia... AFAIK theres no other place on the web with a comprehensive federal election database like that. Timeshift 02:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Youtube debacle

I suggest adding a section dealing with the Youtube incident of July 2007, where John Howard's foray into the internet resulted in his being widely mocked and lampooned by the public Zzzzeta 01:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Wiki Townsvillia n 02:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll add a brief section at the bottom. Feel free to edit it if it's not formal enough. Zzzzeta 06:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the page needs an update in general to include this as well as his recent troubles with the leadership including criticism from Fraser Costello and Hewson as well as those amusing words about lying from Howard's wife himself. Timeshift 03:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"You talk about a whole lot of things when you are trying to convince people to do things, but you don't go back and honour every single one of those unless you have made a firm commitment about it, and John wasn't into making firm commitments." [1]

Yes, Fraser, Costello, Hewson and now his own wife are making him look bad. Interesting times. Timeshift 08:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The above quote from Mrs Howard is hardly about lying. If anyone is trying to sway another, they talk about possibilities and potentials. Latham talked big about what he'd do as Prime Minister last election. Are those all lies? Get a grip. --Pete 04:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:John_howard.jpg - I see it's from wikipedia commons, perhaps i'm not familiar enough with WC, but what is the source of this image exactly? A caption of John Howard in the USA in 1997 is a bit ambiguous... does anyone know what he was there for? Timeshift 03:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The team is ready to cleanse Howard's image. No criticism allowed!!!

It's kind of sad that there's a ready-waiting team of people hovering over this article ready to delete anything that may not be seen as complimentary to John Howard. Sometimes I wonder whether some people are actually employed for this task. In the Record as Treasurer section, the Peter Costello comments keep getting deleted. In the Opposition Years section, the paragraph about Howard entering parliament drunk keep getting deleted, even though Howard himself admitted to it. Take a look at this previous version of the article -->04:20, 25 July 2007 Lester2..it has those 2 paragraphs still intact. Lester2 04:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I see it the other way around. A team of people doing their best to trash John Howard. We don't need cheap abuse in a biographical article of a major figure, any more than we need fawning praise. Try to keep your mind on NPOV, rather than fighting the next election in the pages of Wikipedia. --Pete 04:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As it stands (in its present cleansed form), the John Howard article is not just about the man, but is mostly about his policies. So if its going to have endless info about his policies and achievements, then it also needs counterpoint. A brief paragraph quoting Deputy Prime Minister / Treasurer Peter Costello criticising Howards years as treasurer is highly relevant. Especially when it disputes some of the "facts" the way Howard saw them. Also, being drunk in Parliament is a rather extraordinary and newsworthy event. It's highly relevant, given Howard's tough stance on alcohol. Yes, lets include Howard's glory (which is already included), but unfortunately the soldiers guarding Howard's image only want praise and glory, and delete any counterpoint. The Wiki article then becomes a duplicate of Howard's own website Lester2 05:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hard to separate the man and his policies when he is a significant political figure. This goes for any long-serving head of government. Criticism is in order, but Costello's comments are of dubious merit, considering the longstanding rivalry between the two. It would be more useful to have some authorative and impartial criticism included.

Being drunk in Parliament is a commonplace. We don't need it in a biographical article.

If you believe that "guarding Howard's glory" is inappropriate for Wikipedia, then you should likewise oppose any one-sided "tarnishing Howard's image" campaign. Judging by your contributions here, this does not seem to be the case. --Pete 02:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, it is pretty hard to say something kind about a man that lied about children overboard, lied when he said the government could do nothing for David Hicks, lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, lied about the Australian wheat board scandal and decided to use Indigenous welfare (a devestating problem for his entire reign in parliament) as a means of winning an election. Now, I haven't put any of this stuff in his main article because in order to have a nuetral point of view, I'd need to balance it by showing some of Howard's better moments but sadly there aren't enough to do that. Vision Insider 06:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Howard drunk at work

Just how encyclopaedic is this? Take a look at Question Time - after a long lunch half the pollies will be at least slightly sozzled. Is Howard having a drink worthy of inclusion in a biographical article? Only, I suggest, if he took some sort of drunken action. Andrew Bartlett springs to mind. --Pete 04:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. It should be removed as not significantly important. Slac speak up! 04:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about the drunkeness. (See the previous discussion titled The team is ready to cleans Howards image). You can see the link to the previous version of the article -->04:20, 25 July 2007 Lester2 which has now been deleted. It is historically relevant that the man who is now Prime Minister of Australia once sat in parliament drunk. Even Howard himself has admitted to it, and every major newspaper in Australia is carrying the story. Lester2 04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is also part of his recent biography and in the mainstream Australian media (not "tabloid/tattle"). During the coming days I am sure there will be additional information regarding this matter and I'm sure there will be notable/noteworthy info and statements relating to this topic. --Mikecraig 05:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE and consider how any given small paragraph in the article will cover a major topic like Tampa, Iraq, GST, firearms reform, election campaign and so forth. All of these topics were heavily discussed on a daily basis for 3-9 months (in the case of the GST, probably a year). Things like these usually took up about 25% of the serious news info for the given timespan. Are the serious broadsheets and ABC going to devote 25% of their news/current affairs for three months talking about a glass of wine? Certainly not, and at least 10X more time talking about Mohamed Haneef, who is not mentioned in the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Lester2's edits are nothing more than backyard fence gossip. He is throwing mud in the hope something will stick. Let's hope he can understand about the consensus and what constitutes WP:BLP in a decent living person biography. Let me just add, an Australian turning up drunk for work doesn't get any LESS notable. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 05:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved, lest to say that IIRC Prester John is an ex-Liberal MP. Timeshift 05:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how many are actually paid to keep Howard's image clean on the Wiki. Anyway, nothing I've added is "gossip", as it is cited, and Howard himself admitted to the drunken incident. It's also one of the few anacdotes that gives a real insight into the feelings of the man himself. Howard has taken a tough line on alcohol, and on aboriginal people using alcohol, which makes the revelation of his own drunken episode incredibly relevant. It seems to take an average of 6 minutes for the Howard guardians to cleanse the article of cited newsworthy facts like this. Lester2 05:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, please see WP:UNDUE. I am not a Howard supporter. If you want to put in bad stuff, put in something worthwhile like HECS fees instead of this junk. I would have to say that Howard (and any other person) talks about alcohol in the sense of people engaging in bad behaviour as a result of this. If he drink drives, beats up his wife, abuses his children or behaves inappropriately then it would be notable. Wikipedia is not an anecdote farm. Anybody can be drunk and as long as they don't engage in bad behaviour or have a performance drop because of it then it is not relevant. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet much more newsworthy stuff like the River Murray plan or the aboriginal intervention plan are not even mentioned. Things need to be relevant, not just cited. Peter Ballard 05:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For those Howard defenders who keep deleting the paragraph about Howard being drunk in Parliament, I don't think you really do your cause any good. The anecdote was just a curiosity that I don't think will do Howard any political damage, despite it being reported in every Australian newspaper. Instead, what you'll achieve is a Wiki article so clean of anything even slightly negative (or even colourful), that the article will look like it's obviously been "laundered". To user 'Blnguyen' who sent me a private message threatening to have me banned, if that's what you wish to do, you are welcome to try :) Lester2 06:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it won't. What is will do is damage Wikipedia, in the sense that people who look up John Howard will see it full of irrelevant news items, with some hugely important stuff missing. You seem to be assuming that every editor (except you, of course!) is politically motivated. Please, assume good faith, most of us just want to improve the quality of article. Peter Ballard 06:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "drunk in Parliament" material, again. There doesn't seem to be any merit or much in the way of support. If it emerges that Howard had a history of formulating policy in his cups or conducted drunken rampages through Parliament House after hours, then maybe.

The criticism from Costello is more interesting and I'd like to see some discussion on this. Given the source, its credibility and intention are open to debate. Looking at Peter Costello, who didn't enter Parliament until 1990, his comments on Howard's threatened resignation are worthless. He simply wasn't in a position to know. --Pete 02:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The drinking episode adds a perspective to the leadership defeat to Peacock. The book says that Howard began drinking too much after his defeat to Andrew Peacock. It shows emotional stress. despair. How can that not be relevant? Lester2 07:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless we see some consensus here to keep it, it will keep on being deleted. Nobody disputes that it is accurate and sourced. It's just not notable. --Pete 16:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of comments (above) say that Howard's drinking habits are not relevant to anything. Let me put it a different way: Why should Howard be treated differently to anyone else? Here's some examples: George W. Bush was drinking excessively before he entered politics. Andrew Bartlett was drinking excessively while in politics. And former PM John Gorton drank excessively after leaving politics. All of these people have it mentioned in their Wiki pages in much greater detail than John Howard's brief mention. Name a politician who was proven in some citable way to have drunk too much who doesn't have it mentioned in their Wiki page. Especially one who's policy is to take a hard line against alcohol (ie, prohibition of Aboriginal communities). The mention of alcohol in Howard's page is brief and it's relevant. Lester2 21:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We work on consensus here. Either convince a few editors other than yourself or stop wasting everyone's time, please. --Pete 00:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

PM admits drunken address Timeshift 01:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, 'Timeshift'. I wrote that Howard entered the House of Representatives chamber drunk. I was cautious not to say that he addressed Parliament drunk, as I wasn't sure if it was a verifiable enough fact. The News Ltd story you post seems to have been revised in later editions. But, now we don't have any mention of entering the chamber drunk (even though Howard admitted it), because it has been deleted. Lester2 03:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote re: Asian Immigration

I added the exact Howard quote from 1988 regarding his views on Asian Immigration. It's a brief but historical quote that allows readers a better understanding of the controversy of 1988. Within minutes, the quote was deleted multiple times by User:Skyring and again by User:Blnguyen, without reason given, so I will revert it yet again. It's one of the most famous quotes from JH himself, it is brief, so I don't see what the problem is. I suggest it's better to add to Wiki articles rather than spend the whole time deleting the referenced material that others have contributed. Here is the link to the article version with my contribution >>Version 147372141<< in case someone deletes it again, and others want to see what it was. Lester2 23:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the immigration and alcohol issues need to be separated. I've restored the immigration comments because it was a big issue at the time. I've also removed the comment that it weakened his position. I'm not convinced it did (sadly). Peter Ballard 04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To my mind, the quote should only be included if it is explained a little. As it stands, the quote is given on its own with no context except to say that it "created controversy". What controversy? Why did he say this? Who was upset? What happened as a result? And perhaps, why was it notable? It seems to me that at the moment it is just an attempt to get a cheap-shot that insinuates Howard is anti-asian into the article. --Yeti Hunter 07:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that there has been a fair amount of "cheap-shotting" recently. However, I think that the quote is important, perhaps not necessarily in this article, but possibly in a more focussed article regarding race relationships in Australia. There's certainly a lot of material about, looking at increasing Asian immigration in the final quarter of the C20, Pauline Hanson, race riots and so on. Giving the quote to John Howard without a wider context isn't fair dealing. --Pete 20:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To 'Yetihunter'... I agree that more info could be added. There was a lot of controversy back in 1988, and that detail could be included. J.H. made a similar comment on the John Laws radio program at that time, though I don't know of any transcripts. Then again, it was pretty hard to have this brief quote included, as it got deleted many times. To 'Skyring-Pete'... There is a mountain of material and quotes regarding racial issues from John Howard himself, enough to fill a separate Wiki article. To me, it's an important part of John Howard's history, and of our history (no matter whether we agree or disagree with what was said). A separate article about Howard's statements and policies about race would get around the problem of the present article's chronological order, as the quotes cover Howard's entire time in politics. I'd be willing to do the research and find the references (which would take a significant amount of work), but once again, I'm afraid that it would be deleted the second it is posted. Lester2 09:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Biographical details

This article lacks information about Howard's ethnic background and religious affiliation. Once these are added, then categories can be added in too, so that the ethnic and religious make up of Australia's politicians can be better covered. For a comparison, look at the article on Paul Keating. We learn that he has Irish ancestry and is a Catholic. It is not fair to say that readers would be correct in assuming that Howard is the 'default ethnicity' for Australians, which is Anglo Saxon Protestant, on the basis of a photo and his name, so therefore there is no need to state it, any more than readers would be left in the dark about these details in relation to someone with the name Keating (its a pretty well known Irish name, and most stereotypes about the Irish involve them being Catholics), so thus it needs to be stated. Biographical details like DoB, ethnic background/ancestry and religious affiliation are standard fare in an encyclopedia.Eyedubya 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

His religious affiliation, such as it is, should probably be in the "early life" section. I don't think ethnicity should be, on the basis that it is rarely if ever remarked on. I would argue that ethnic background is not standard fare for an encyclopedia, unless it is unusual or notable. Most people care little about it, thankfully. Peter Ballard 07:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So, would you argue that Keating's Irish ancestry is any more notable than whatever Howard's ancestry is? And why only in his early life section - didn't his belief in a god of some kind play an important role in his version of the 'preamble' for a republic? Also, when you say 'most people care little about it', what do you mean - about ethnicity in general, or that of John Howard? It would appear that you mean the former. What evidence do you have to support this assertion about the attitudes of 'most people'? - and which 'most' are you referring to? Australians? People from China? Africa? Europe? the USA? The majority of those with internet connections live outside Australia - how can you be so sure that they're not interested in the ethnicity of Australian Prime Ministers? Eyedubya 11:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Keating, IIRC, went to Ireland while he was PM and visited an ancestor's grave. But beyond that. no, Keating's Irish ancestry is of limited interest too. By "most", I mean most news sources and articles about Howard (or for that matter Keating). If you can find reliable sources on Howard's ethnicity, put it in. If you can't find any, then that says something about how much people care about his ethnicity. As for the "early life" section, I mean that's the best place in the article as it stands. Not in the Infobox: a consensus decision was reached a while ago to remove religion from the infobox of all Australian politicians. Peter Ballard 02:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll just have to make do with the bit at the bottom that lists Howard as an 'Anglican politician'. Eyedubya 08:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Bob Hawke motion on race, opposed by Howard

Section: Opposition years (1983-1996) Link to text:[2]

On 3 August, 2007, I added the following historic information:

The Hawke government immediately seized the opportunity to embarrass Howard over his Asian remarks by introducing a motion to the parliament opposing the use of race to select immigrants. Howard fought desperately against the motion, despite some other Liberal MPs crossing the floor to support it.

However, it was quickly deleted by Blnguyen. This time, the deletion occurred 7 minutes after it was added (usually cited Howard information is deleted in only 6 minutes!!!). The issue of deletion needs to be discussed. Lester2 03:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What you need to do is work as part of a team. At the moment you are being an irritant to more experienced editors and your contributions are being seen as vandalism. I suggest that you discuss your edits here rather than edit-warring over them. --Pete 04:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My dear Mr Pete (Skyring). This is an area for civil discussion only. I invite those who wish to engage in civilised discussion. Lester2 04:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to WP and to this page in particular. But for what it's worth... My sense is that one issue with this and some other contribs has been the choice of language - i think it would be a rare situation where it would be appropriate to use the words "fought desperately" in an encyclopedia article, unless they were directly quoting an authoritative source of the day. Ditto "immediately seized the opportunity". It isn't that these things are not arguably true in a broad sense. Rather, every decision to adopt this language - which would be appropriate in a newspaper opinion column or article in something like Quadrant or The Monthly - undermines the fragile balance of NPOV. NPOV is all the more difficult to maintain in any article on a contemporary political figure, so they require even more careful writing than articles about less contentious subjects (or even contentious, but historical, subjects). Despite some flaws, the language on the page as it stands at this moment seems somewhat preferable to Lester2's. However, I also think the entry will ultimately benefit from one or two referenced examples of how Howard's stance was used against him later, as well as for balance perhaps reporting his more recent reflections on the issue. Ultimately this entry aims to inform complete outsiders about the nature and significance of Howard's role in public life, which is why it does seem appropriate to report the long term impact and analysis of this well-known incident. I don't know if my contribution helps at all. If I get some time, I might try and do some work on the entry to follow my points through... cheers hamiltonstone 06:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Something might be true and well-sourced, but notability and appropriateness for a biographical article also needs to be considered. The race quote is reasonably well-known and bears inclusion, if for no other reason than its aptness in terms of later problems with integration. But parliamemtary motions across the despatch boxes, although well sourced in Hansard, complete to extreme and inflammatory language, are rarely worthy of inclusion in a biographical article. --Pete 02:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

To 'hamiltonstone': the line "immediately seized the opportunity" was how it was described in newspaper reports. Someone deleted that line in later revisions so I guess it doesn't matter. // To 'Pete/Skyring' the notability of the event can be proven by the wealth of newspaper articles on it. There are no Googleable stories from the mid -1980s. All the stories are recent ones, which shows it's of current interest and notable. I can cite more news items if requested. 3rd opinion sought Lester2 14:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You are the only editor who wants this stuff included, you've edit-warred over it, you keep on reinserting it without consensus, and if you do it again I'll report you on 3RR. --Pete 22:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your 3rd opinion request, it seems that you haven't grasped the point that this is intended for a fresh pair of eyes on disputes involving only two editors. Looking at the history page, it is clear that multiple editors are opposed to the material you alone keep on reinserting. --Pete 22:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's notable but not because the motion started with Hawke, trying to embarrass Howard (I wasn't aware that it had gone like that). It's notable only because a number of his own members crossed the floor against him (and because one of those was Philip Ruddock - I'll be elaborating this point on Ruddock's page, which only mentions it briefly). I think it is an integral point, to show that not all the Liberals were with Howard at that time. Couldn't we have a compromise, take out the dramatic language "immediately seized the opportunity", but leave in the notable fact that Ruddock and others did cross the floor on this issue? Nick 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi User:Nick, glad you found the information notable. I'm happy with the ideas of User:Nick and User:hamiltonstone, that the event is notable for inclusion, and that that colorful language like "seized the opportunity" and "Howard fought desperately" be toned down. The final version at 15:03, 5 August 2007 is fairly minimalist, and may come close to what you want. Maybe you guys can improve on that. I'm also happy if anyone wants to expand it. Lester2 01:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

While I believe that Howard's comments at the time are very notable (probably the biggest stuffup of his 1st term as opposition leader, apart from his inability to control the Peacock and Joh camps), I'm not convinced that the parliamentary vote is the best way to expand on it. I'd like to see the section expanded, but instead with detail on how and why he was criticised for it. The parliamentary vote itself isn't notable without some explanation of the controversy surrounding it. p.s. It definitely belongs on the Ruddock page though, because though just another day in parliament for Howard, it was a very big deal for Ruddock. Peter Ballard 01:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it shouldn't be expanded unless the rest of the opposition years is proportionally expanded. Since the motion itself does not appear to be a piece of legislation or program, but only appears to be a statement of ideology, I don't think that the motion is notable. In parliament they have these types of things all the time, condemning some terrorist act, expressing condolences for victims of natural disasters and condemning Mugabe and so forth. I think explaing the impact of the controversy is more important. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that there are motions passed all the time (in the parliamentary sense!). Like those examples condemning Mugabe, or condemning a terrorist act. Those examples are non-notable, because all the parliamentarians voted as expected. But imagine if an MP voted to show his support for Robert Mugabe, or support for a terrorist act. Then they would become notable. Unlike Ruddock, Howard voted to oppose the motion that would outlaw race as a criteria for selecting immigrants. That makes it very significant and noteworthy.Lester2 03:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a count of how many ppl crossed the floor from teh Liberals. Was it a massive number? The link that Lester provided doesn't show who voted which way. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

~~From memory~~ it was 3. http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s672095.htm Peter Ballard 04:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Lester2's comparison to Mugabe above is just ridiculous. Hawke was just grandstanding and of course his motion did not reflect the reality. Of far more interest is that there were divisons within the Liberals. However, Howard has always had his party opponents and many, such as Peacock and Costello, have been fairly vocal. It is in the nature of the Liberals, that members can and do cross the floor albeit rarely. Alby Schultz, as a local example. Going back to the 1975 crisis, Whitlam fully expected a few Libs to crack. It is not the same as the ALP, where the appearance of solidarity is demanded on every level. Look at the odium heaped upon Mal Colston, speaking of 1975. --Pete 05:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the only way for this issue to be resolved is with formal mediation. Blnguyen & Skyring (Pete) (and anyone else who would like to comment, are you accepting of mediation? Lester2 01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Does permission equal relevance?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/diongillard/93805238/ Timeshift 04:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Article needs protection

Which admin decided it would be more productive to lift the protection on this page? I'm sure I recall hearing from an admin that Wikipedia won't even consider lifting the page protection until Howard is out of office. Timeshift 03:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Voice of All unprotected the page with this edit. I for one am sick of reverting the blankings and "frothing at the mouth" ravings, entirely in capital letters. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 07:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

3 Photos of Bush

I agree with User:Intelligent Mr Toad and this edit. Three separate pictures of Howard and Bush amount to a violation of WP:POINT. I am removing two until suitable replacements can be found. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 07:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As per edit summary. Timeshift 08:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Prestor John, ex-liberal mp, whatever you want to be known as. I have compromised by removing one of the photos, but the other three photos stay. Two have Bush, with one of those containing Howard's wife. That's the nature of wikipedia, US photos are freely usable images. I've cited one who agrees with me, and nobody else has raised an eyebrow until you, an ex-liberal, comes along to remove them. Please take your bias elsewhere. Timeshift 09:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO it is not "editorialising". To do otherwise leaves a text-heavy page that is hard on the eyes. I'm personally of the opinion that one image per screen is fine, and this is one image per 2.5 screens at present. I for one would be happy if people took more photos of John Howard and uploaded them, or his press office released some under GFDL (this will never happen - believe me, some of us have tried contacting politicians for this purpose and it's often a fruitless pursuit as many of them have older press advisors who just don't "get" technology) so that we could have a wider diversity of photos, but unfortunately we are constrained by Wikipedia's new (2007) fair use rules/enforcement to what is free for a living politician. My own pic of him taken at a rally in Perth sucks, was too close up. Orderinchaos 10:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

New image

I have an issue with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Liberal1.JPG - who else agrees it is not encyclopaedic and/or POV? Timeshift 10:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine as it seems to show how Howard wishes to be seen as a strong man leading and defending Australia. Also shows campaigning techniques. Might do with a better/more descriptive caption. 203.28.240.20 10:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally have no problem with it - it shows how he is being promoted by his party. The caption might need work but the poster is fine. If anything it's more likely to offend right-wing sensibilities as he's looking a bit Hansonish in this one. Orderinchaos 10:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask what the source of this is? Is it from the Liberals? Prove it is - otherwise, speedy deletion ;-) Timeshift 10:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

We have promotional images in other articles, such as Image:Rann gets results.jpg, Image:SA06posters.PNG and Image:Liberalhtv.jpg just in a cursory look around - and that's not even getting into historic ones. As an administrator quite capable of actioning or declining a speedy deletion request, I would much prefer to see community discussion rather than threats and point-pushing on both sides of the debate as we've seen today. Orderinchaos 10:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems suitable for inclusion as illustrates techniques of Howard election campaign. Removal seems to be POV. 203.28.240.20 10:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Still would like to see the source of the image. Looks like a photoshop work to me. If the image is genuine it is worth inclusion - it is funny Alex Bakharev 11:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I was also amused by it. Mind you, I've seen similar efforts in small country towns in my travels, so such things do seem to exist. Orderinchaos 11:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It certainly looks like a photoshop, and if not then from an old advertising campaign. It should certainly be moved from the Australian federal election, 2007 page, where this editor seems to determined to place it. Recurring dreams 11:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If photos with a source and solid detailed fair use rationale are deleted, I fail to see how this image without any source or detailed rationale is OK for use. To simply take on word alone that it was scanned and that's the end of it would be foolish. And as for the anonymous comments, with the level of vandalism lately i'd suggest to ignore them and stick to the long-established members. Timeshift 11:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The photos on this page really don't show much. Howard has certainly maintained a close relationship with the USA, but does that mean that every photo should have been taken in the US? Vox latina 11:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've put my pictures online at [3]. Orderinchaos 11:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you - any quality photo of Howard you have that doesn't breach Wikipedia rules is most welcome. The way Wikipedia is designed, be it for better or worse, is that photos by US press, such as those in this article, are freely useable on wikipedia. It's better to have photos that will stay there than dodgy photos which will over time be deleted for copyvio issues. But again, any photo you've taken or another who has given their permission and is a quality photo, it is more than welcome. Kudos to Orderinchaos, it's just a pity the pictures are of such poor quality as he has already mentioned. Timeshift 11:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a photoshop job. If this was real Liberal Party material, a good proportion of members would resign if its designer was not fired. Delete on sight, block the troll. Michael ^talk 11:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it eligable for speedy delete? Timeshift 11:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the (actual) image which I photographed up north in my recent holiday, which isn't that dissimilar, and is definitely kosher. Different strokes for different folks, and the country and the city clearly adopt different campaigning methods. Orderinchaos 11:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That said, we will not take "scanned from a Liberal pamphlet" in good faith on this one. Timeshift 11:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I for one am prepared to show good faith, I was actually going to contact the Liberal Party's office tomorrow morning when they open and link them to it. If they say it's not theirs, I'll happily support its removal. I don't see any reason why it can't wait 14 hours. - edit - Looks like Alex Bakharev has taken care of that for me. I will support the outcome of that process. Orderinchaos 11:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As per Image talk:Liberal1.JPG, Greg Hunt has been emailed by Alex as you have said, I am also happy with this outcome. Timeshift 11:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The photo is very uncomplimentary. No way is that a genuine Liberal poster. Orderinchaos's example is quite different because it shows JWH looking composed and statesmanlike, though I doubt that one is genuine Liberal material either. Peter Ballard 12:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Do you think that this would fail to get on the front page of every Australian newspaper if it were genuine? Howard holding a gun, good greif! Add to that the woefully amateur layout and design, there is no way this is anything other than a (poor) photoshop job.--Yeti Hunter 02:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, honestly, how pathetic. I've deleted it. --cj | talk 04:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Article needs protection

Which admin decided it would be more productive to lift the protection on this page? I'm sure I recall hearing from an admin that Wikipedia won't even consider lifting the page protection until Howard is out of office. Timeshift 03:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Voice of All unprotected the page with this edit. I for one am sick of reverting the blankings and "frothing at the mouth" ravings, entirely in capital letters. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 07:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Still lots of vandalism going on [4] Lester2 00:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth apologising for State misdeeds

Here's a reference to a current news story. It's from the Las Vegas Sun, but the same story, according to Google, is found in newspapers worldwide. The key point is that the Commonwealth is not admitting any responsibility, instead pointing the finger at State governments and church organisations. --Pete 06:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well of course the Commonwealth is not admitting responsibility, because it's a Howard government minister reflecting Howard's view of the world. But the calls were for the federal government to apologise for past Federal misdeeds, not the misdeeds of other governments. The Stolen generations report, said: "Recommendation 5a: That all Australian Parliaments 1.officially acknowledge the responsibility of their predecessors for the laws, policies and practices of forcible removal,.... Peter Ballard 06:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So have I made my case? Does someone else want to revert the text? Peter Ballard 08:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You haven't made a case, because the calls were not for a federal apology, but a national apology. There is a difference, though I am not sure that those demanding an apology were aware of it or the significance of the 1967 referendum. I'm not happy with the "previous generations" wording because it doesn't give the full story. --Pete 08:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Didn't you read the bit which called for "all Australian Parliaments" to apologise? And if you read the Stolen Generations report, you will see that federal involvement is documented. Not even Howard tried to deflect it by saying it was a State but not a Federal responsibility. (The cite you offer above doesn't do that, merely claiming that "most" - not all - were caused by State governments). Saying that the debate was only over the action of "colonial and state governments" is false. Peter Ballard 12:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed "generations" to "governments", which seems to cover the BTH recommendation. --Pete 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bob Hawke motion on race, opposed by Howard

Section: Opposition years (1983-1996) Link to text:[5]