Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:35, 13 December 2007

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Not PM

Can you change his political status?--RoryReloaded (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Until Howard officially speaks it can't be done. As of 21.57 AEST he has not spoken yet. But man I can't wait until he does. Seeya later Johnny, don't forget the seat of Bennelong on the way out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.150.170 (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does Wiki state my time as an hour ahead? I havn't hit 88miles per hour for ages. Hell I don't even know how fast 88mph is as I study distance in kmph! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.150.170 (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be something to do with daylight savings time detection not working. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphamone (talk • contribs) 11:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He just gave his defeat speech on Ten news, give me a sec. --Chris 11:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He remains (Caretaker) Prime Minister until the swearing in of Rudd in about a week's time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.28.166 (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately theres a lack of intelligence in the Australian people so we got Krudd Richardson j (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Richardson this is a discussion page on the article and not a place to form your own opinions. Who would you have voted for, Sailor Moon? (Yes, I see the irony in this statement, do you?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.150.170 (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please keep your comments civil; secondly, please read and heed the talk page guidelines; and thirdly, please sign your messages. John Howard is the incumbent PM until Kevin Rudd's appointed by the GG. Qwerty (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

wow what an Election Rudd good on ya Kevin. good buy mr Howard! lets get rid of them IR laws and give us battelers a go. NO WAY WILL I VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO TAKES PEOPLES RIGHTS IN THE WORKPLACE AWAY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.69.26 (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bio Infobox incorrectly states a terminal date for his commission as Prime Minister (24 Nov 07)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

Updating this page post-election

Please amend entries referring to Mr Howard as the Australian Prime Minister to the past tense; this is because he lost the election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keffiwiki (talk • contribs) 13:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

See below. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we change the page now?

He is no longer the PM, when do we modify the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.48.254 (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He is still the PM until he hands in his commission to the Governor-General, which I would expect would occur late this week. In the meantime Kevin Rudd is generally described as "Prime Minister-elect". Since we don't have a presidential system, that is not technically correct, but it fits the bill. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

All these late updates prove the point that this page only needs semi-protection now. Also, about the intro sentence: "Howard failed to win a fifth term in the 2007 election on Saturday 24 November, against the Australian Labor Party led by Kevin Rudd." That should read "...losing to the Australian..." , not "against".-DMCer (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on this, I had no idea sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.48.254 (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If the page is protected, can the proper template be used to indicate this, please? On seeing the page, I tried to update the succession box. And I couldn't. Talk about disappointment; the Australian PMs' succession boxes are like children to me. Is it so bad to want to take care of them? Is it?! (throws a fit and storms out of the room, slamming the door behind)

(returns to pick up top hat, then slams door again) Waltham, The Duke of 14:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, it still says "semi-protected". If full protection is to be maintained, then at least please someone replace the template. It is confusing to the editors. Waltham, The Duke of 09:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the protection down to semi but please discus any major changes on the talk page BEFORE you make them and please don't turn this into another edit war, I will block if people start WP:3RR, consider this your warning. --Chris 11:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I partially reverted User:Brendan: basically everything related to successor I didn't touch, but changed back the tense of his status as PM to present tense. I also left a comment on this on the article above my revision: feel free to remove the comment once Rudd's sworn in. Kelvinc (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The known inescapable facts are that Howard in the very very near future will no longer formally be the Prime Minister of Australia, his party having lost government and he having publically conceded defeat as well as declaring the Liberal party leadership up for grabs. But if this means waiting a few more days before correcting the tense on those inescapable facts, so be it. --Brendan 09:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of correcting the tense. He remains the PM, despite losing the election, till Monday 3 December. The media may have good reasons for portraying events the way they do, but what the media says doesn't determine when the PM's term starts and ends - the constitution does. -- JackofOz 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

1988 error requires admin to change

In the Opposition Years section, the article currently says the following...

During the 2001 election campaign, Howard stated:

I don't think it is wrong, racist, immoral or anything...

He actually made that statement in 1988, as the reference indicates. Maybe the lead-in line should just say: "During the same month, Howard stated:" As the article is locked, I can't change it. Requires an Admin. Thanks, Lester 14:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I just made that change. Thanks, Lester 12:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor changes needed.

Just a couple of minor points need changing, but the page is protected, so I can't do it myself. Perhaps an administrator may like to do it instead.

1. The table at the bottom showing political offices and the like needs updating to reflect that John Howard is no longer the incumbent in some of these offices, and his successor for a couple of the offices is now known.

2. In the section near the end, "The 2007 election campaign", in the text reading "The Australian Prime Minister", the word "The" should be lower-cased to "the": it is not the beginning of a sentence, and the word "The" is not part of the name of the office.

Thanks. M.J.E. (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed #2. My understanding is that Howard is PM until he returns the Letters of Commission to the GG - see Prime Minister of Australia#Appointment, so I'm incline to leave things as they are until all is official. Banno (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Bennelong

Since Howard was defeated he legally ceased to be an MP on October 17 - the day the parliament was dissolved. PMA (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't yet been defeated. McKew hasn't claimed, Howard hasn't conceded. With three quarters of the vote counted and still pre-poll and absentee votes to go, McKew on 51.1 percent is still ahead, not home. Although some websites might like to claim otherwise. Timeshift (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If, as seems likely, he is defeated, his term as member for Bennelong will end on 24 November, not 17 October. This is the difference between a retirement and a defeat. Sitting members who chose not to contest the election ended their terms on 17 October, and that's when their parliamentary salary stopped. Those who contested it but were defeated end their terms on 24 November. Their parliamentary salary is paid right up to election day.

It's a feature of the system that's often been exploited (I mean that in the general sense, not necessarily negatively) by sitting members who had little chance of being re-elected, such as where a sitting member is disendorsed by their party and fights the election as an independent. They still get the extra month-or-so's salary because they chose to contest the election rather than bow out -- JackofOz (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice link to the history of Bennelong elections at the division's page. It would appear a myth that it was simply due to redistributions that Howard lost his seat. I'm quite surprised at how close some elections were, especially decades ago, in Bennelong. Timeshift 15:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What is this link? Lester 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good buy mr Howard. not just your party but your seat as well what a labour victory!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.69.26 (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Star of the Solomon Islands

Does Howard use the “SSI” postnominal? I’ve never seen it used apart from here. The only thing I can find about the award is this, which tells us next to nothing. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nor I. Off it comes. --Brendan 07:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added it, at least provisionally, since there's a citation in the article saying that he and Helen Clark of NZ both got them for their work in restoring law and order in the Solomons. The fact that there's no article on the award itself is a bit of a shame, but he does appear to be one of the people who have received it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it again. No-one is questioning whether or not the award exists, but whether or not "SSI" is a formal post-nominal for that award. In the absence of supporting evidence, the post-nominal (not the award) should be removed. --Brendan 06:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Maxine McKew has claimed victory

Maxine McKew has formally claimed victory for the seat of Bennelong. (Sydney Morning Herald). I think it is now appropriate to reflect this in the article's introduction.--Lester 22:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you read that article, you'll see she has stopped short of formally claiming victory. She did appear to claim victory, but later corrected herself to say it was still too close to call. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Records set

If Howard loses his seat, which seems likely at this point, he will have set the record as the longest serving PM to be defeated. However, does anybody know, if will have set the record:

• as the longest ever serving member to be defeated?
• as the longest serving member of the same seat to be defeated?
• as the oldest member to be defeated?

etc. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that the answer to all three questions is Sir Earle Page. He was second only to Billy Hughes in the longest-serving stakes (and Hughes was never defeated); he held Cowper for his entire 42-year parliamentary career (a record for holding a single seat); and he died at age 81, having just been defeated in the 1961 election (although he went into a coma before the election and died a couple of weeks later, never knowing he'd been defeated). I'm not 100% sure about the last one; there may have been older members than 81, but I doubt it. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Workchoices dead

This is text someone else added to the article (not me) but it was recently deleted, and I think it's at least worth discussing before deleting. The text:

Here's a reference, in case anyone needs to copy & paste it:
<ref name="SMH_deep">{{cite news |title=We went too deep on Work Choices: Hockey |url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/11/28/1196036933980.html |publisher='']'' |date=2007-11-28 |accessdate=2007-11-28 }}</ref>

The comment in the edit box from the deleting editor said: "I don't think this is a fair criticism. Obviously everyone in the Liberal party is blaming each other for the election defeat. Wait for historical perspective b4 analysing the meaning of the electn".

Anyone care to comment? Is Hockey's criticism worthy of inclusion in the article? --Lester 05:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well "concede" is definitely not NPOV. I think it probably emphasizes one element excessively, though: interest rates, climate change, international relations, and a general "mood for change" were definitely also factors. Better off collecting verifiable sources that suggest all of the above. Plus also it may be more relevant in the Australian federal election, 2007 article, though obviously some mention here is worthy. Kelvinc (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't only Joe Hockey who said Work Choices was a mistake. I think about 3 prominent frontbench MPs have said similar things since the election defeat.Lester 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs ultimately to be included in some form, but rather than attribute specifically to Hockey, it might be better to indicate that "members of the defeated government and analysts of the 2007 election loss argued that the introduction of the Work Choices legislation package was probably instrumental in the Howard government's defeat..." or similar, Then cite the Hockey source, but also others as appropriate. And yes, "conceded" is definitely not NPOV. While it may take a while for a full analysis of the defeat to emerge and become 'stable', there seems no doubt that Work Choices will be central to that analysis, so I do think it is appropriate to include some observation re this at this stage. Yes, as per Kelvinc, 2007 election page is main location for this material, but must be some mention here, particular re factors explaining defeat over which PM had some control (such as Work Choices, stance on climate change) hamiltonstone (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

John Winston Howard - a timeline

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/24/2098414.htm?site=elections/federal/2007 - interesting page that might serve a purpose as a source. Timeshift (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look very accurate to me. It claims the Tampa came in 2000. Wasn't it 2001? --Lester 20:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, 2001. But on a quick read I couldn't see any other errors. -- JackofOz 21:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Could we trial the removal of all page protections?

Timeshift 07:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in a week or so? Banno 08:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Economic management

The Economic Management section previously contained both praise of the government's economic policy as well as criticism of the policy. Both arguments were presented, as Misplaced Pages policy encourages. However, recently the criticism was deleted, but the praise retained. Here's the diff. The reference attached to the criticism was from conservative commentator Paul Kelly writing in The Australian newspaper. Would other editors care to comment about this deletion?.Lester 21:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If the section is imbalanced, it needs fixing. There is much that could be written (see Talk:John Howard/Archive 7#Economic Management section for references and further discussion). I agree it must not be allowed to be reverted back to a "glory statement", and that an emphasis on (demonstrated relevance to) Howard is essential. If that cannot be achieved, deletion of that section would not be objectionable. --Brendan 13:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection no longer necessary

With Rudd sworn in and Howard no longer Prime Minister, protections are no longer necessary. Please have these removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.178.83 (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Howard

I thought you would win —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.239.98 (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I know you would loose. good on ya Rudd well done Kevin know Australia is in good hands. now the battlers will get a fair go. and somthing will be done about Global warming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.69.26 (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Should Howard be called a "former politician"?

I see the article now opens with the line that John Howard is a former politician. Is this appropriate? Other former prime ministers are still referred described as "a politician" (not a former one). Lester 23:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I recommend following established styles and if other PMs follow this practise, than I agree. Also it makes more sense when you think about it. Shot info (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson is still described as "a politician". Why not Howard? That's his profession. Someone is still an author, even though they may not have written any books for years. Lester 23:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and I agree with your arguements and I agree with your recommendations, just in case you missed it :-) Shot info (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's only an issue with living former PMs. Looking at the other living Australian ex-PMs: Malcolm Fraser is described as "a politician", Gough Whitlam is "a former politician", and Bob Hawke and Paul Keating make no mention of it at all. (I haven't checked on the dead ex-PMs but I assume we say "was", which is fine.) If we're going to make these consistent, I'd prefer "former politician". I don't like the analogy with authors. Authors, composers, painters and others never retire - they go on till they die. But politicians do retire; they might not leave public life entirely, but they're certainly retired from politics. If an ex-PM decided to run for Parliament again (Gorton and others tried; and Bruce was re-elected), then they'd resume their status as "politician" or "parliamentarian". Howard is certainly not a parliamentarian any longer, so how can he still be a politician? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "former politician" is appropriate because he has retired. Pauline Hanson is a special case because she keeps re-running unsuccessfully for office. I'm not sure how to describe Hanson, but that doesn't affect the fact that Howard is definitely "former" (or soon will be once he's cleared his office out). Peter Ballard (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

JackOfOz mentions (above) that the Hawke and Keating articles don't start by saying "he is a former politician". Maybe that information is redundant for Prime Ministers. I guess if the article says "he is a former Prime Minister of Australia", we don't need to also say "he is a former politician". Maybe the answer is leave it out altogether! Lester 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that suggestion. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Leave it out. Same goes for the postnominal 'MP' after the name in the lead sentence of BLPs for active politicians. It just aint necessary. That context is already sufficiently clear from the lead narrative. Also don't need to use the qualifier "former" if the tense is correct (eg. was a politician). --Brendan 12:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Shot info (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Pauline Hanson case raises the question of what we mean when we describe someone as a "politician". Is it a synonym for "parliamentarian", or does it mean someone who's active in politics in whatever capacity? Despite her various attempts, she hasn't actually been a member of any legislative body since 3 October 1998, over nine years ago. But she has certainly remained active in the political arena. But that is also true of the Michael Krogers, Warren Mundines etc, who work in the public arena for the electoral success of their parties but are not in parliament themselves - and they're never described as "politicians". I have no issue with calling Pauline Hanson a former politician. The fact that she's a frequent candidate would come out in reading her article. If she ever gets elected again, we can restore her status as "politician". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a definition of the word politician from dictionary.com. A seeker or a holder of public office. So, the person's intent plays a role. Hanson intended to hold public office. I would say that fits the common accepted meaning. However, that dictionary also says "an expert in politics", which could mean anyone! Lester 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Our politician article says much the same thing. Does this mean we have to now apply the label to Kroger, Mundine et al? Take a person like Greg Combet - he's a politician now, but prior to him being endorsed for Charlton, would anyone have called him that? He certainly publicly supported Labor and publicly worked against Howard's Work Choices and other issues, while Sec of the ACTU, so he'd meet the criteria we use ("active in party politics"). I think there's scope here for misleading our readers. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be the case that a person doesn't get the label "politican" in the eyes of the public until they've been elected; even if they're later defeated, but keep on trying to get back in, they would still be considered one - Hansen is the classic case. Lots of people tried and failed before their first successful attempt - Hawke, Howard, and Barry Jones come to mind. They were never described as politicians until their first successful attempt to be elected. Which would explain why Michael Kroger, who's had a few goes at getting pre-selected but has never got past that point, is never described as a politician, despite meeting the criteria in our article. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PNG

Ah... those New Guinea plantations that the Howard family had interests in. Discussed before, it's time to have a fresh look at this issue, now that the election has been and gone, and John Howard is no longer in politics.

Reference articles:

• PNG Post Courier feature article
• Island Business magazine
• David Marr
• Hamish McDonald
• Stay In Touch
• Prime Minister responds to copra allegations
• Joel Gibson
• 2007 Biography:John Winston Howard
  

There are lots of long articles on this subject. Lester 01:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Still not really notable in the context of John Howard. Remember BLP still applies. Shot info (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of Howard articles (above) cover it, for something that was "not notable". Others must have thought it was notable to dedicate so many articles to one little fact. The front cover of Fiji's Island Business Magazine looks awfully like John Howard. Lester 03:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing what newspapers will devote time and energy too, I would think that your "so many articles" would be beaten by anything on Paris Hilton or Britney Spears dress sense. For discussion, see all the arguements in the archieve(s). Shot info (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> this again. I would have thought that a serious biography of an individual (or a biography of a serious individual?) would where possible contain information about the subject's background, particularly her or his parents' lives and work. See, for example Gerald Ford and Theodore Roosevelt, and for a sketchier example see Don Dunstan (all chosen as they have FA status in WP). Even these, i would have said, are sketchier about family background than a solid biography could be, but they provide a wikipedia exemplar suggesting this sort of information be left in. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Take it all back out, Lester. I can't see any change to the consensus established last time. You want to put it in, gain consensus first. --Pete (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

While I maintain my position of a small amount of information included, I do note with some embarrassment that once again, Lester has readded information without consensus. No doubt he would have run off and complained to ANI were anybody to remove it. I wish he would at least make an attempt to gain consensus at least... Shot info (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the wikisin is fairly blatant this time. A good faith editor works as part of a team and accepts concensus. Waiting a couple of months and having another go, hoping nobody notices, is evidence of bad faith. We thrashed this out most comprehensively last time around. --Pete (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than engage in similar behavior (ie/ by reverting), it seems he is offline at the moment, so I think it's prudent to give him the opportunity to seek some consensus here. Incidentally I didn't mind the edit, which is why I didn't revert it, but I did refer him to previous discussions (above), which I note where given due consideration by him :-) Shot info (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. No point in an edit war if he doesn't accept that he is in the wrong. Sterner measures required. He gives "the election has been and gone, and John Howard is no longer in politics" as his rationale for inserting material without consensus, but I can't see how that applies. --Pete (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is information on his family's background not relevant? And why do people seem so against it's inclusion? --Merbabu (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has standards of accepted behaviour. Inserting material against consensus is not accepted. You understand this, I trust? --Pete (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand each of your three sentences above, and that you believe the editor known as Lester has "wikisined" - these are clearly very obvious points. However, perhaps you, or another, could answer my actual question "Why is information on his family's background not relevant?". --Merbabu (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be a dork and waste everyone's time. For ease of convenience we can accept that all editors are using the same arguments and making the same points and have the same positions as last time, and that the previous discussion may be referred to for those who are unfamiliar with the case, or who are short of memory. There. Your question has already been answered at great length and in great detail. As you know already. It is Lester's behaviour that is the problem. As you know. --Pete (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Sterner measures", "wikisin", "Lester's behaviour", Skyring? I don't see anyone stampeding to agree with those typically idiosyncratic (and irrelevant) judgements of yours. Read WP:CON. Consensus is not set it stone. It can, does, and may change over time. Now is as valid a juncture as any to re-examine editorial sentiment towards this small factual well-referenced piece of content (that appeared not only in newspaper articles but a biography on the article subject). The content itself is within relevant Misplaced Pages policy. I agree with a minimal factual inclusion of the copra plantation involvement. --Brendan 10:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously your opinions haven't changed since last time this was discussed at length, a relatively short time ago. And, if I make Lester's behaviour an official issue, it's not you who gets to decide. Lester's history of disruption and POV-pushing is easily demonstrated. There is no apparent reason to revisit the issue. --Pete (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't know how many rounds this thing's gone - and couldn't say how many I was even around for. I tested my patience reading some of the archived discussion this evening. For what it's worth: suggesting there was consensus for omitting reference to the plantations seems to me an... ambitious?... interpretation of the discussion. Dissent was evident throughout. As material that illustrates the work and family background of the subject it seems non-controversial, and in terms of verifiability, it seems adequate to raise no issue with WP:BLP. I would have thought a passing reference should be maintained. The thing my background reading for this highlighted most of all was how we could all do some work on political bios in WP - they've a long way to go... hamiltonstone (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability & Consensus: Users 'Skyring (Pete)' and 'Shot info' (above) argue for exclusion on the grounds of 1. Not notable, and 2. No consensus. Notability is proven by the 8 references, including cover stories on 3 major news publications in 3 different countries. These cover stories are not just about John Howard, but specifically dedicated to the plantations issue in relation to John Howard. Also, the newest biography on John Howard includes the plantation issue. How can it possibly be argued that the issue is non-notable with this weight of publications about it? Question: What is the reason this criteria about notability is not applied to other parts of the John Howard article? What other single facts in the John Howard article have so many feature/cover stories written about them? As for the consensus argument, to claim consensus for exclusion is to disregard the opinions of the numerous editors who have stated their preference for inclusion.Lester 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lester, I've skimmed through the previous discussions and there is certainly no concensus either way - claims here that there are, as Hamiltonstone puts it, "ambitious". I certainly don't see a BLP issue here if the entry is limited to stating the fact that they had an interest in plantations, and I would support it. That changes as soon as anyone wants to go into detail about any apparent "controversy" or dubious/unethical dealings. I wouldn't support that information, and make consensus for inclusion less likely. (in fact, i haven't actually counted, but it appeared that a majortity actually support a minimalist version that didn't mention any controversy).

The word "consensus" is getting thrown around a lot here, with editors (ocne again) "offering" to explain to others what it means. Let me suggest what I think it doesn't mean: it doesn't mean unanimity, and thus, it is not a tool for a minority of editors to keep their preferred version. --Merbabu (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS tells us what to do. Normally the accepted thing is, ask on the talk page. See what the consensus is. Make the edit. Not, tell on talk page, make edit anyway, ignore consensus. Also Lester, you should probably read my position on this info in the archieves and above rather than assuming my position. Shot info (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CON does not say that. See the Misplaced Pages consensus process flowchart on the Consensus policy page. Edit first (ala WP:BOLD) then, if reverted, take it to the talkpage. --Brendan 10:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, 'Shot info', as I failed to recognise that you support inclusion, as long as it is minimalist. I think the sentence that existed in the article on 10:20, 10 December 2007 was minimalist. It just briefly states what is a pretty well known fact. Personally, I always thought the Howard family acted completely lawfully with their plantation dealings. Lester 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec). Thanks Shot Info. I think it is now time to move beyond Lester's transgression of process, and focus on the merits or otherwise of the recently removed text. --Merbabu (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time to look at what else Lester has done recently and start building a case for sanctions. I had hoped that he'd learnt to work as part of a team, but no, he still doesn't get it. Look at how he opened this section - because nobody will be voting for or against John Howard, the rules have changed. What rubbish. Misplaced Pages is NOT a political battlefield to sway votes. It's an encyclopaedia, and people come here looking for information, not propaganda. --Pete (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If, for example, you were to stop commenting on talkpages thus, the volume of propaganda to which people find themselves unfortunately subject would be instantly and dramatically reduced. Try talking about article content on the article talkpage, and less about the long-running chip on your shoulder that you've had towards Lester. You, Pete/Skyring, who was once banned by Jimbo Wales himself for prolific sock puppetry, are the last to lecture others on team play and behaviour. --Brendan 10:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest you take your own advice? Or were you genuinely trying to be funny? --Pete (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest as you please. You don't need my permission. Just don't expect anyone to take your suggestions (nor your grandstanding and soapboxing) seriously given your sock puppet history. I'll leave the humour to you too, hit-and-miss though you tend to be. I'm more interested in knowledge and fact. For example, facts such as "who was the former One Nation branch president for Canberra (1999)?". --Brendan 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Great - it's good to see we all agree that we should now stop commenting on behaviour and seek consensus based on "teamwork", collaboration, and good will. --Merbabu (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You can walk into a bookstore and pick up the 2007 biography John Winston Howard and pretty close to the front, on pages 7 & 8, it gets into the New Guinea plantation issue. John Howard himself cooperated with this biography, spending time with tha authors to provide interviews and anecdotes for the book, which indicates he is at ease with it. It concerns me that this article's coverage of the same PNG info has been deleted, even though it was already proportionately briefer than the space devoted to the issue in the book. We need to be able to include interesting anecdotes like this in the article, as is found in the book, to prevent the article becomming a replica of what can be found on the Parliament House website, Lester 17:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We discussed the book last time round. There have been no new developments, yet you unilaterally decided to insert something that you had repeatedly been told not to. I'm wondering what else you've done recently in similar violation of community agreement. What does it take for you to get the message? --Pete (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, this discussion was started about a day before the content was added. The previous discussion was mainly centred on whether the facts were true, and whether a David Marr article was an "attack piece" or not. Later, numerous other articles were cited, including the Papua New Guinea and Fiji press reports, and the John Winston Howard biographical book was released around that time. These other non-David Marr articles were not discussed in depth. The previous discussion didn't achieve consensus one way or another, so it was sent to a Mediation Committte hearing, but that was shut down when a couple of people didn't wish to participate, which is in their right to do so if they choose. My point is that we have a reasonably well known fact about the Howard family that many people who have read the book and the newspaper stories already know about. This article's previously lengthier account of it was reduced to a mere mention, which is probably not possible to reduce further without deleting it altogether. I don't believe the brief sentence editorialises whether the event was good, bad, or otherwise. If we are going to omit a well known fact from an article (carrying 10 references), we need to discuss in-depth reasons to justify such an exclusion. Thanks, Lester 21:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The book was discussed last time. The material was in a section of the book devoted to JH's father. There is no relevance to JH except through his father. We have no sources saying he even knew about it until decades later. There is a WP article on JH's father which includes the material, and naturally the JH article links there. We've been through all this in tedious detail to the point where there was nothing new in the points being raised. There is nothing new in sources or discussion, and may I suggest you go and find something useful to do now?

Your behaviour is an issue, because it looks to me that you noticed that my WP participation had dropped, Prester John is out of action for a few weeks, and you thought that you could sneak this stuff back in without gaining first gaining consensus for a knowingly controversial edit. --Pete (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I started this discussion thread on 6-Dec, added the content on 7-Dec, and Prester John began his vacation on 9-Dec. 'Skyring(Pete)', you said you feel it is controversial. I'm interested to hear your reasons why you think it is.Lester 00:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details of Prester John's affairs. I've only poked my nose back in here in the last couple of days. It may be that you are not quite the weasel I implied above. Nevertheless, reinserting controversial material without prior consensus is definitely a wikisin. As for whether it is controversial, we can all see the history of edit-warring since you first inserted it. Do we have to tie you down and bang on you with a croquet club before you grudgingly accept reality? --Pete (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If there's edit warring going on, it only shows that there are people on both sides of the debate. It doesn't prove that either side has a mandate to do it. Letting content remain or get deleted according to who can conduct the most successful edit war isn't a good way to find consensus. Which is why I try to find out from you,your reasons for finding it controversial. Regards, Lester 01:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

See here, Lester. It seems that you and I are in agreement. It is controversial. You may retire your crop, Dobbin is late. --Pete (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy added to infobox

There's been a bit of edit warring, after the Monarchy was placed in the infobox window. Rather than conduct another discussion here, I point people towards 2 existing discussions, at Talk:Kevin_Rudd and Talk:WikiProject Australian politics. Thanks, Lester 04:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Include Misplaced Pages: WikiProject Biography aswell. Also, will the edit-war over inclusion/exclusion please stop (for now), we don't need this article locked, do we? GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Records - no quote

The article states that Coalition loss was the equal third biggest electoral defeat by an incumbent government. Where is the reference for this? Even if it is true, I question the significance of this statement as federal governments change very rarely, particularly in modern times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveller12 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely the very rarity of these events means that, when they do happen, they are inherently notable and significant? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

How much of http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22895466-7583,00.html and http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22850588-5013871,00.html can be added without reverts and cries of POV? I think it's rather informative. Timeshift (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing about elections, you get a lot of people telling the truth as they see it, because the votes have been cast. It might not necessarily be the factual truth, but it's their opinion. As it happens, I agree with a lot of what Downer says. The contrast between Howard at retirement age and Rudd with a decade or so left in him was pretty stark.

In the context of a biographical article, giving a huge amount of space to Downer's views wouldn't wash. But he was a senior minister and his opinions carry a lot more weight than those of even an experienced political journalist. I think if we can find one or two juicy quotes and label them as opinion, it's worth putting in. --Pete (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The meeting of Liberal frontbenchers in the Quay Grand Hotel seems to be a decisive moment of the final weeks of the Howard government. A story worth telling. Lester 21:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What I find interesting and of potential addition is that they knew for most of the year that they were going to lose this election, and positioning themselves in ways that won't stick them between a rock and a hard place in opposition while still giving them wiggle room to move, should Kevin Rudd have done a Latham. Timeshift (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Howard always maintained that he would “stay as long as his party wanted him to stay”, and he stressed time and again that the job was not his but within the gift of the party. Now, it appears he was never willing to go just because his party wanted him to; he always wanted it to be his decision and his alone. It could be interpreted that his formula was a lie all along, and that his primary interest was always a personal one - to be the only PM other than Menzies to successfully fight more than 4 elections. On the other hand, if his overriding concern was the success of his party, and if he really believed that the party would stand a better chance of winning under him than under Costello – probably a realistic assessment, and one that many of his colleagues shared – then his decision to stay could be justified. But if that was the case, why did he put it in terms of having to be forced out, rather than accepting the party's own wisdom? Maybe he was saying that the views expressed to him did not represent the view of the whole party. Or was he really saying that he knew better what was best for his party than the party itself did? Sure sounds like it – which is as far as you can get from his old formula, ie. the party decides these things, not any individual, including himself. Maybe we can point out the contrast between his publicly stated formula and what he really seemed to believe. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Before someone comes along and removes it however... like Prester. Oh wait, he got banned for a month :-) Timeshift (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

He did!? You've made my day. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 00:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes :P Timeshift (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the above speculation (about Howard, not Prester John)? --Pete (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't deny I got a cheap LOL from the above line :) Orderinchaos 14:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto ;) Ah schadenfreude. --Brendan 03:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The articles pretty much say that. Of course it didn't come from Howard's own mouth though, as these sorts of things never do. Timeshift (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The articles claim a Downer speech at an event as the source, and the fact Downer or other Liberal sources have not contradicted in any way (as they have been quite unhesitant to do when they believe they've been misquoted before) suggests to me that it is at least their view, even if not necessarily accurate to the facts as they are. My view re Wiki is it should contain a note about it, no more than one or two sentences, and attribute it to Downer via Shanahan/Milne. Nothing has come out to contradict, but if it does, that can be noted afterwards to balance it. Orderinchaos 14:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles