Talk:John Howard/Archive 17

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 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Relationship with Indigenous Australia

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

There is complete confusion about which article things should go into.--Lester 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Gun Control, East Timor and the GST

Latest comment: 15 years ago25 comments6 people in discussion

In response to the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, John Howard brought State governments together to initiate major gun control measures across Australia. The move met with some opposition in traditionally conservative rural districts where the National Party vote was under assault from One Nation, however it was greeted by wide acclaim in the broader community. Controversially, Howard addressed a pro-gun rally in a bullet proof vest [ see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia) ]

In 1999, John Howard successfully campaigned internationally to raise a coalition of willing nations to intervene in East Timor and restore order following a United Nations sponsored independence vote which had led to the widespread outbreak of violence against civilians by pro-Indonesian militia [ see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Timor#Independence ]

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating criticised Howard's handling of the crisis, however the Keating critique was rejected by East Timorese independence leader Jose Ramos-Horta, who wrote of Mr Howard as "an exceptional leader, a man with courage and integrity"

With reference to its response to the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 and to the East Timor Intervention, Mr Ramos-Horta further wrote of the early Howard government:

"In the case of the economic and financial crisis in the region, as well as in the case of the East Timor crisis, Australia has emerged as a reliable and indispensable power through its economic muscle and decisive leadership.

The East Timorese will be forever grateful to Australia. We will remember John Howard with gratitude and Paul Keating with contempt – or he might be discarded into the dustbin of history." [To History's Dustbin, Mr Keating - Jose Ramos-Horta; Sydney Morning Herald; 9 October 1999]

Despite his 1995 comments rejecting the GST, Howard made taxation reform a central plank of his narrowly won 1998 re-election campaign. On 1 july 2000, the Howard Government instigated major taxation reform by replacing a series of State and Federal taxes and duties with a single Federal 10% tax on goods & services across Australia. [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_Services_Tax_(Australia) ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 05:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm struggling to find what you are wanting to change in the article. Is this just WP:SOAPBOX? Timeshift (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Until you mention gun control, East Timor and the GST you do not have a full discussion of the Howard Prime Ministership. Agreed? Presently these key events are not even mentioned! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 06:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And did you even bother to take more than a passing glance at the article? Because if you did, you'd notice that this article is about John Howard, and not the Howard Government, which there are numerous links to in the article. Howard Government mentions all three. Now run along. Timeshift (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. An article that can talk about Howard and economic management and Howard and US relations can talk about Howard and East Timor and Howard and gun control. Now lose the "attitude".

Hey, i've always been against the seperation of Howard the person and Howard the government as different articles, for example the reason you've just stated. The point stands however, that amongst John Howard and Howard Government, it's all there. If you read the article and knew this, you wouldn't have presented the above arguments in the way you did. Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's a biography article on Howard, and I actually have no problem with this being different from a Howard Government article; I am just not yet happy with how this has been done. My comments are obviously intended to be considered for inclusion somewhere in amongst or in addition to the Headings marked 6 through to 6.6 which deal with "John Howard Prime Minister" which do not yet reference these three major (and controversial) issues and Howard's role in them. Sections 6-6.6 have major gaps. IN a John Howard article it is perfectly relevant to list his major areas of policy involvement. So far this job is incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 08:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If gun control, east timor and the GST should be in this article, then any single policy aspect of the government could be. The three belong in Howard Government. Howard the person was directly involved in US relations via his personal friendship with Bush, and sections of the media put the market-controlled economy that was booming thanks to mining, in the second half of his Prime Ministership, down to Howard's skill. Note my skepticism. Regardless, when a poor decision such as the division of the subject in to two articles is made, there will always be disputes over what should be where. But the point remains you did not read the article to note the Howard Government article otherwise you would have brought it in to your discussion. But perhaps that is another fault of having two articles. Timeshift (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with these three items going into John Howard article – in fact, having just checked the article I’m surprised they are not. These were 3 major issues, along with just a few others, that stand out in defining Howard as prime minister. Without looking at the various and long-archived discussions on the article split, I remember that there *was* general agreement on including these points. Having said that, I don’t believe they need anything but the *briefest* of mentions (there is ample room in specific articles to develop these – if not done so already), and I am still against listing every detail of the govt’s 11 years of activities in this article. --Merbabu (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC) PS – it’s amazing to me that these 3 items are not in the article, yet a tiff with Obama is. I guess that’s popular input for you. --Merbabu (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Because Howard was the one who had the tiff with Obama? That relates to Howard the person, not Howard the government. I still think having two articles just creates problems i've already said, and also duplication. Two articles shouldn't exist - I guess that's popular input for you. Timeshift (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Do ou believe that Howard’s fallout with Obama is more significant to Howard the person than the 1996 gun control measures, or the GST? That’s the impression the article provides. These two issues are closely related to Howard (arguably more so than East Timor). I will get around to it sooner or later if no one else does.

I’m not sure why you can’t see the need for a separate article, but from where I sit, it seems to be used well to justify the exclusion of major items (GST, gun control) and to justify the inclusion of relatively trivial things (Obama). Perhaps the problem is not so much the principle of two articles, but the implementation, which I have indicated here is fairly lousy. --Merbabu (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is the fact that GST/guns/timor were legislated policies by the Howard government, while the Obama/Howard thing was a tiff and not a legislated policy? It is not rocket science. If GST/guns/timor should be in the JH article, then so should the rest of the government policies and the Howard Government article should be deleted. Timeshift (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You say "If GST/guns/timor should be in the JH article, then so should the rest of the government policies and the Howard Government article should be deleted" The corollary of that idea would be that nothing relating to John Howard’s PM’ship should then go in the Howard article, which of course would be complete bollocks, an approach that no-one in favour of the split (the majority) supported.

I think the distintion between Howard the Prime Minister and the Government is very clear to all, as is the fact that there are some stand out and notable items that are very closely related to Howard, and there are many numerous others that are details, which in theory could go on and on and on. The all or nothing approach that you are suggesting is not going to work (as you know, indeed as you wish?), rather some discretion is needed. If anything that the Govt enacted goes into the John Howard article, where does one stop? The principle of a split is broadly accepted, but clearly implentation is going wrong if gun control and GST is not mentioned, whereas a spat with Obama is mentioned.--Merbabu (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Many Howard Government policies were personally instigated by Howard. Not so much East Timor and gun control (which had bipartisan support and probably would have turned out similar under a Labor government, though Howard deserves kudos for pushing gun control through largely against his own constituency), but things like budget surpluses, GST, Workchoices, refugee policy. So in that sense they were to do with Howard the person, and I think they all deserve a mention here. (And are all far more significant than the Obama comment, which I agree belongs here also).

It is incorrect to say that gun control would have turned out the same under a Labor government. Labor had talked for a number of years about the need to implement gun control, but never did so because of resistence by the National and Liberal parties. If there had been a Labor government at the time of Port Arthur, it is uncertain that the conservative parties, especially the Nationals with their rural base, could have supported it, and if the Liberals would have supported because of political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimofbentley (talk • contribs) 08:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Even better, merge Howard Government back to here. All the split has done is given us all one MORE thing to argue about, and editing on both articles has pretty well stalled. p.s. Merabu I'm curious to see whether there really was a majority consensus to split. In any case, if I did support the split back then (and my recollection was I was a "weak oppose", and possibly didn't express an opinion), I certainly oppose it now! Peter Ballard (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

While implementaion has been lousy (Obama “yes”, GST “no”), having a single article was and is fundamentally flawed. It just becomes a dumping ground for every little detail that is notable to a government, but not notable to a biography. It was one big list. --Merbabu (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree that the split created less argument. Obama aside, it has seen an almost complete decrease in trivial, details that really relate to the govt being inserted and then edit warred over. Interesting that no-one is interested in adding details to the Howard Govt article, but they are lining up to put it under John Howard. That speaks volumes – to me anyway. --Merbabu (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You're joking right? I suggest you check out Talk:John Howard/Archive 14, Talk:John Howard/Archive 15 and Talk:John Howard/Archive 16; all devoted to an argument over one detail which was ALREADY in the Howard Government article. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, I really don't want to work through 3 archives. What am I looking for? argument related to a split, or just argument?

Further, the level of argument over an article has nothing to do with whether it should be deleted. Then we’d delete George Bush (or for that matter John Howard. --Merbabu (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The debate was over whether to mention a submission to the International Criminal Court to try Howard for war crimes. Currently it's in neither article, though at the time (at least while I was participating in the debate before I gave up and left) it was in the Howard Government article. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What ever the merits of either side of that specific debate, it actually has nothing to do with an article split. Ie, personally, I’d say it doesn’t belong in either - but that's beside the point at hand. --Merbabu (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Howard Government is a waste of time, duplication, and causes bickering about what goes where. I could argue Merbabu's belief in holding a majority, but there is no point, as wikipedia works on consensus not majority, of which there is none. The two articles are hanging in limbo. But whatever helps Merbabu sleep. Timeshift (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

But whatever helps Merbabu sleep. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok the picture is clearer to me now. I didn't know the history of "the split" and the arguments about it. So you can take my reaction as a fresh look at the results of the split: I believe there are some major omissions in the John Howard the man profile: Port Arthur; East Timor (his letter to Indonesia for instance) and the GST Election.

On another point: I think comments on Howard made by his significant adversaries and his supporters are very relevant eg "Little suburban solicitor" by Keating; "man of courage and integrity" by Ramos-Horta; "man of heart and a man of steel" by Bush; "I have been time and again grateful for his counsel" by Blair; "I will always remember that he was the first voice on the phone after the Tsunami" by Yodoyono; "if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq. Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric" by Obama etc. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 05:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not meant to be lists of quotes. Rather, we report on events around those quotes. Besides, that would just be asking for trouble on a page with a history of "bickering". --Merbabu (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There never was consensus for the article split, as some have claimed above. The split was made in the middle of a separate fierce discussion/edit war over the Obama quote. Objections were raised at the time, but ignored. Now it seems, any negative facts go to the "dumping ground" of the Howard Government article, in order to keep the John Howard article a clean biography.--Lester 17:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"US Relations" should be expanded.

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

The chapter on US relations seems thin. I suggest the following:

Upon his election to office Howard sought to "reinvigorate" the US alliance. Howard's stated philosophy on balancing US and European relations against relations with Asian nations was that Australia did not have to "choose between its history and its geography". President Bill Clinton quoted and endorsed these sentiments in an address to the Australian Parliament. In 1999 John Howard lobbied President Clinton to assist in a military intervention in East Timor and in March 2000 Howard received a congratulatory letter from Clinton: "I want to take a moment to congratulate you on the steadfast leadership your government showed in addressing the rapidly changing circumstances in East Timor."

Howard was in Washington DC near the Pentagon as it was struck by a hijacked aircraft on 11 September 2001 and closely aligned himself with United States president George W. Bush in the aftermath of the attacks. The philosophies of the two leaders in relation to domestic policy often differed (eg Howard supported gun control; the maintenance of budget surpluses; and an emphasis on government debt reduction) but in international policy, Howard firmly supported Bush's military action against the Taliban and Saddam governments.

Howard strongly advocated a Free Trade agreement between Australia and the United States, negotiations for which were concluded in 2004. The Australian Labor Party's Mark Latham criticised the closeness of Howard to Bush in 2003 saying: "Mr Howard and his Government are just yes-men to the United States".

In May 2004 President Bush hosted Howard at his ranch in Crawford Texas. The President called Howard a friend and told reporters: "The prime minister is not only a man of steel, he's showed the world he's a man of heart".

In February 2007 Howard strongly rejected Democratic presidential nominee candidate Barrack Obama's opposition to the Bush Administration's "troop surge" policy in Iraq, and the Senator's proposal for a March 2008 withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Howard told the Nine Network: "If I were Al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and pray... for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats".

In response, Senator Obama said: "if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq. Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric." --Observoz (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre Censorship: I agree with you, Observoz, that these quotes should be in the article. The improvement of this section is impossible while certain editors endeavour to remove and censor commonly known facts that are widely covered by the mainstream media. For example, the quotes from Howard and Obama during their disagreement (mentioned by user:Observoz above) got deleted during edit wars. It is beyond belief that such famous and well known content is censored in this way. It used to be in the article. Now it isn't. If some editors delete facts they perceive as being negative to Howard's image, it provides a disincentive for other editors to add any facts to the article, whether positive or negative. The article then comes to a stalemate.--Lester 20:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest more care be taken with accusations of censorship. It was likely not your intent, Lester, but such comments might suggest a lack of good faith. Censorship is major wiki-sin, yet there are a number of reasons why info on Howard that you would have liked in the article did not get consensus for inclusion (info which of course was equally balanced between negative and positive info). Rather than censorship, these reasons were provided by a variety of editors, a number of whom are of very high calibre and whom I know in real life are quite left in their political outlook – yet, they are just good at not letting their bias’ seep into their WP editing. As for the Obama drama, there was indeed edit warring going on, but there was a whole lot more written on talk pages about it, and the current position is the rough consensus arrived at. Ie, the version there now got thrashed out on talk pages rather than lost in edit warring – and, when has there ever been a one-sided edit war? Further, if the point is included – as it is and immaturely so in my opinion – it is actually insignificant if the actual quote is not there. --Merbabu (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the new suggestions are OK and I can support with some changes and very good cites. Firstly, it is now too long. Like much of the article, I think word count can be significantly reduced (by half even) without actually removing any points – perhaps by perhaps carefully trimming/removing paraphrasing the quotations which get tiring in any article – say the Clinton and Obama quotes. Although, I agree that “man of steel” can’t really be described using other words - lol. The suggestions also needs further review/work on the wording – for example, “balanced *against*”. Ie, this implies to me "intentionally at the expense of Asia", and care needs to be taken to check that this is actually what was said/meant. Further, it does not mention the US alliance.

More generally, the previous versions of this article, this suggestion, and some editors seem to imply, to varying degrees, that Howard’s “closeness” to Bush and the US was exceptional – even that he was subservient to the US. But was it really exceptional? How would have any other PM acted – including a Labor PM – had they been in power during the “War of Terror”? I suggest what was more to the point is that it was US actions, rather than Australian, that were exceptional. I.e., has any Australian govt not gone along with US military action when requested, or suggested that the Aust-US alliance is not of utmost importance? I might be wrong here but I don’t think so. Keating and Hawke were all avid US supporters, and Rudd seems to be too. The only difference might be that the Howard and Bush seemed to have a “personal friendship”, at least that is what the media seemed to paint. --Merbabu (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Merbabu, I didn't understand what you meant about the Obama incident being "included – as it is and immaturely so in my opinion". You'll have to elaborate. Also you said: "the version there now got thrashed out on talk pages rather than lost in edit warring" - I would disagree. It was arrived at by edit waring, circumventing consensus. Some of the main deletionists refused mediation when offered. Howard's verbal attack on Obama still resonates, it is still headlines in the papers years after the event, and is a political issue for the current opposition under Turnbull. Yet it can't be quoted here.--Lester 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to elaborate. The Obama drama is old news, and is a side-show that you brought back up in relation to the new posts here – that I replied to it above is more than enough time wasting for me. The obama drama is in there. Why do you need quotations too? If you think it needs even more elaboration still, my suggestion is to go and look at the archives. No one is forced to required to have mediation and I fully understand there reason not to. What about the rest of the point at hand apart from the Obama distraction? --Merbabu (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the other points made by user:Observoz. They should all be included. Some were there before but deleted. For example, Howard's stays at Bush's ranch were previously in the article, and fully referenced. It was there prior to the Obama information, but seemed to get deleted during the Obama discussions, as a means to keep Obama out. The Howard/Obama spat is still in the daily news, and regularly discussed by commentators. People wonder what was said.Lester 12:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY! Obama's likely win in the US Elections today will only go to show how conservative and out of touch Howard was with the Public both Australian and International. As this goes towards an historical explanation for his own terrrible loss at the hands of the electorate (that historians in coming years hence will surely cite) THIS ABOVE ALL ELSE SHOULD SURELY GO BACK INTO THE ARTICLE. TO NOT DO SO IS TO CENSOR AND DISTORT HISTORY! 122.148.173.37 (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Obama stuff was hashed out many months ago and I see no need to revisit it. Neither Obama nor Howard have added anything to the debate. The current text was arrived at after exhaustive consultation on the talk page. There is no need nor consensus for change. --Surturz (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Surturz, your refusal to participate in formal mediation does not equal "exhaustive consultation".--Lester 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually my memory is that I spent quite a bit of time brokering the consensus text (what was it, 8 versions?). But thanks for ignoring the time and effort I spent doing that. I refused mediation because you and the other pro-quote editors simply wanted an admin to step in and tell me I was wrong, you didn't really want mediation at all. That said, at least you are a consistent inclusionist (e.g. you want to include the Kevin Rudd G-20 gaffe at that article), unlike a certain other more mercurial editor. --Surturz (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Add to his Awards

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

PRIME Minister John Howard was presented with the prestigious B'nai B'rith international Presidential Gold Medal for his "outstanding" support of Israel and the Jewish people at a ceremony in Washington on Tuesday, May 16 2006--Jupiter07 (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC).

The Times Will Suit Them listed on AfD

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a heads up for those interested in adding their two cents to the Article for Deletion discussion. Timeshift (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-core promise

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Where's the "non-core promise" quote? --Surturz (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I remember discussing this and helping put it in. It used to be there, now it's gone, both from here and Howard Government. Maybe it was a casualty of the infernal split. However it happened, it's very frustrating to work on something then to have it ripped out for no good reason. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a lot of content gets ripped out of the John Howard article for no good reason. Often, deletions happen without an adequate description in the edit summary, so it's hard to track who did it. The "non-core" quote was one of Howard's better known quotes.--Lester 12:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It’s not really about “who did it” but the reasoning behind it (sorry if it looks like I’m lecturing on the obvious!). Also, I never rely on edit summaries to understand the history of a page – good edit summaries help, but one needs to actually compare versions. I know this is what I do. --Merbabu (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Per my edit summary, I think the case for inclusion of the quotation is marginal. This gets back to my point about not focussing on the bigger picture or narrative rather than on media beat ups and catch phrases/one liners/clangers – a point apparently not shared by to many! But I can live with it’s inclusion and acknowledge it as actually being a big story (difference being it didn’t happen this year or last). But be aware of context – ie, I think the actual (huge) budget cuts are the point of consequence, not the media hype about a shocking line. Hence, I put it in a couple of days ago.[1] If someone could clarify it without (a) increasing word count or (b) introducing (or worsening) POV then I’d be happy. --Merbabu (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"4th worst defeat"

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

As I've argued elsewhere (can't remember where, sorry), "4th worst defeat" is a vague and debatable term. The size of the defeat can be expressed in various ways - 2PP vote, 2PP swing, number of seats lost, percentage of seats lost, etc. - so the the phrase "4th worst defeat" needs to be replaced by a more exact phrase. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is a bit vague as currently worded, but I'd like to keep it if we can describe it as the 4th worst defeat in terms of - - - - - - - . Was it 4th largest swing (23 seats??). --Merbabu (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"4th worst" is a silly phrase to include. Stick to the objective facts. 1st or 2nd might be notable, but I very much doubt the question "Which was the fourth worst election defeat?" would even turn up in a pub trivia comp. No reader would be interested in which was the fourth worst defeat, nor the eleventy-seventh narrowest defeat. It is not useful information to include. --Surturz (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. I perhaps would have liked to have seen it modified (per my comments above), but I can live with it gone. --Merbabu (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama quote

Latest comment: 15 years ago24 comments7 people in discussion

John Howard's famous Obama quote, where he said "If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats" keeps getting added and deleted. Why not let the quote speak for itself? It's a relatively short quote, so it doesn't need to be paraphrased for space reasons. For accuracy, we need the famous quote back in there, not a paraphrase. With the massive world coverage it still gets today, that one line is probably now the most famous thing that Howard ever said. Please put it back.--Lester 23:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

To my mind, it’s not quite accurate to say it "keeprs getting added" and deleted. It got added twice by yourself only in the last few days after a reasonably long time of stable state of a highly contentious issues. Then, yes, Surturz and then myself reverted it to its more stable state. But, what you didn’t mention above is that I then actually saw that the text wasn’t actually inline with the actual words said – so, I then paraphrased it to the essence of the quotation you wanted (I agree, it wasn't quite correctly paraphrased. [2]

There’s a few more issues that need to be considered – and you should keep in mind that unless you get a startling new argument, you are unlikely to convince your opponents on the merits of inclusion:

This was a very contentious debate and one in which that you essentially got much closer to your way than your opponents (ie, inclusion rather than exclusion). Consensus was achieved not by agreement, but by those disagreeing with you (eg, myself), choosing not to remove it. To now bring it up, and “grab yet more”, is undermining that consensus. Please keep a spirit of compromise and keep in mind that for us exclusionists, you got 90% of what you wanted. We got 10% - please focus on cohesion (which often do very well) and don’t makes a feel like our 10% is now being undermined.
I disagree with the length thing – it’s got a lot more coverage than some events like the 96-97 budget cuts which I think were more consequential. Rather than thus increase the coverage further, I suggest holding in check the attention given to Obama. With reference to "massive world coverage", I asked a number of people over the weekend about the Obama Drama – none of them had heard of it, although everyone remembers (either fondly or with horror) the first term budget cuts, Port Arthur, the leadership tensions, etc, etc. While I won’t insist that it be removed as non-notable, I will insist that any notability is kept in context.
It’s also a stylistic thing – all these block quotes look poor, and disrupt writing. Better to paraphrase it, or if we must put the “most important few words” into brackets “like this”. And, even if you don’t agree – then at least do it to show your spirit of compromise (be happy it’s there), rather than a spirit of winner takes all.

regards --Merbabu (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's trivia. Why should we include this, if we don't include more widely reported and/or notable incidents on Kevin Rudd? Are we trying to present a balanced picture toour readers, or are we going to be forever following some ideological line. What sickened me about my time in politics was that party political spokesmen were forever doing their best to spin things their way. Party A is squeaky-clean and Party B is filthy evil. Why don't we Wikipedians just report the facts? On an even-handed, impartial basis. --Pete (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don’t see either (“Obama Drama” or “or the what’s G20 leak”) as being particularly worthy of inclusions, but I’d have to reiterate my concerns over the apparent double standards, particularly as it seemed that those wanting exclusion for G20 only acknowledged that the event was not confirmed, but did not acknowledge that the *issue* as opposed to the events was certainly confirmed. Big difference.

But these debates go around in circles, particularly as “sides” don’t appear to give specific acknowledgement of the other side’s reasoning (ie, acknowledgement is not necessarily agreement).

--Merbabu (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We wasted a lot of time discussing this previously and consensus text was eventually developed. For Lester, a participant in the previous edit wars on this issue, to change the article text without even discussing his proposed changes on the talk page first does him no credit. He should know better. I have no desire to either waste more time discussing this issue, nor change the extant text and will be reverting accordingly. Please do not assume my WP:SILENCE equates to consent on the Obama quote... go through the talk archives if you want my view. --Surturz (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. With this difference: I now must grudgingly admit notability since it is still appearing in the newspapers, and Obama ultimately got elected. The main problem I have now is with putting the quote in verbatim. The quote was clearly ironic in tone (Howard was criticising Obama, he was not really guessing Al Qaeda's prayers nor intending to lead Al Qaeda himself) and so it is more important to put in what Howard meant rather than what he said. To put in enough context to use the quote verbatim would be undue WP:WEIGHT. --Surturz (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't seriously think we should undergo some WP:OR and interpret words do you? It is far better to put in what he said rather than what he may or may not have meant. It is up to us to report and let the reader come to conclusions rather than us do that for them. Timeshift (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I kinds agree with tomeshift here. Although I note surturz reverted my stricter paraphrasing of lesters full quotation. --Merbabu (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I note timeshift has just reverted surturz. While I agree with this version, I think our problem on these pages is that we don't bring with us those with whom disagree ,finding a third and better way is almost foreign while position entrenchment is the norm, we compete rather than collaborate and are not mindful of letting our "opponents" save face. It would have been nice to at least give surturz the opportunity to say "ok I don't agree but I accept". Ps. That is not a comment directed at timeshift alone but all here incl me. And edit summs can be the worst behaviour. --Merbabu (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was actually agreeing with your compromise. I'm happy to change and compromise, I only stand my ground on occasions when I believe it to be warranted, or the situation doesn't allow for more than two options. Timeshift (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

yeah. I got that u agreed. :). --Merbabu (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just reverted Timeshift9's edit back to the original consensus text. I am a bit disappointed, to be honest. The consensus text, which has been there for quite a while, was arrived at by many iterations here on the talk page. Eventually, everyone agreed it was tolerable. No such effort is being made with the new version. I'm not against changing the text, but given how much trouble we have had with this content before it seems a bit reckless of Lester and Merbabu to be installing new versions without any significant discussion. Is it so hard to propose the new text here, and get some feedback before installing it? --Surturz (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. Quick history lesson for everyone: Talk:John_Howard/Archive_12#Compromise_.28or_lack_thereof.29_.238 <----this is the way to establish consensus, not edit warring. --Surturz (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Surturz, i think at this point it seems that you are the only one against this edit. You say you're not against changing the text, but seem to be dwelling on procedure (or at least how you think the procedure to be). Rather than argue over very malleable notions of "consensus" (it's like governments, oppositions, and Senate parties all simultaneously claiming a "mandate"), woudl it not be best to look beyond procedure and identify what actually needs to be done to achieve that consensus? Ie, what's your actual position on this version here before your revert? Are you actually against it or is your revert more on procedural grounds? To be honest, this tooing and froing about who actually has consensus is bulls**t. COnsensus arrives when people like myself who don't want to see it at all just accept it - ie, I never agreed to it's inclusions, i just stopped commenting and didn't revert it. And for what it's worth, i too was a little annoyed with Lester's initial change, but tired to look beyond the apparent stretching of the collaboration.

Can you accept the new version? For me, if it must be in (gah!) then it's not unreasonable take on it. I'm not appealing to follow the procedure (whatever tf that is), rather I'm appealing to a sense of collaboration - i reckon you reverting yourself before someone should earn you significant wikirespect. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't accept Lester's version or your version. Both of these basically insert the quote verbatim which as I have mentioned before is misleading without a lot of context. I have let many changes to this section slide, the worst of which was changing it to "US Relations" when originally the section was about his close personal relationship with GWB (evidenced even more recently by GWB's appearance in The Howard Years). You calling my actions "bulls**t" is a complete lack of good faith when I was the original one to broker the consensus text, bringing Skyring and Matilda on board to include it. Lester was the one to change the Obama text without proposing it here first, you shouldn't be defending him. Hash out a version here on the talk page first. If you can go a week with me as the only dissenter, then you have your consensus and can insert it into the article. It is not too much to ask. --Surturz (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The bulls**t remark was perhaps ill-advised, but it is the way I see it, but importantly it was certainly not aimed at you, but all the bickering over who has consensus (I was in on it too at one stage). I'm glad you at least stated your condition for accepting and moving on. --Merbabu (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, my problem with the interpreted version (yours) is that it is just that - an interpretation. Perhaps the key then is to find a notable and reliable secondary source to use to put it into context. I understand what you are saying about the context (i'm not against it in principle), but without sources to back it up, i think such a remark needs to be kept as is. --Merbabu (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To add my opinion, for what it's worth: It's been a while since I had much to do with this article (since before the split, I think) but looking at it now I think that without context, neither of the two quotes ("man of steel" and "praying for obama") add particularly to the US relations section. To add context would be to give the quotes undue weight, as if Howard's Obama quote was somehow important to his US policy. Maybe it would have been, had Howard won the election and subsequently had to repair his relationship with Obama, but that is not the case. Perhaps the section should be rewritten to include more actual substance (affirming the ANZUS treaty, personal friendship between JWH and GWB, for example) rather compromising by including one quotation of each side of this debate. Just a thought.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the best suggestion yet, although I don't think that the two quotes were meant to be opposite and balancing. Also, as an interim measure, I'd like to see if Surturz can give us his approval per my last comment. It would be a small victory for goodwill, but a meaningful one. And should be easier than a much needed but difficult re-write. --Merbabu (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The "man of steel" comment is pertinent to both the personal Bush/Howard relationship and the wider alliance. Hard to give a complete picture of the man without discussing his friendship with Bush and its effects on the direction of our nation. The Obama thing is trivial in comparison, though if Howard and Obama had been contemporary heads of government it might have been interesting. Have to wonder at the impression a reader would get from Wikipedia about contemporary Australian politics; the significant is lost amongst the trivial. --Pete (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Without talking specifically about this issue, the "significant" has indeed been "lost amongst the trivial" in this article (for various reasons with any blame to be widely apportioned!). Another editor who knows this page summed it up to by saying it lacks a narrative. I would like to think that my editing over the last few days has addressed that slightly. Mostly me with more to come. --Merbabu (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia's preferred style is "lifeless". By and large, the best articles on WP are those predating the internet. For anything contemporary, editors are sparked into action by reading a news report and trying to be the first to add the new factoid to the relevant article(s). And then defending their work against all comers. After all, it's "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit". The end result is more like a wall covered in graffiti than a great work of art. Here we also have differing points of view. Michaelangelo's angels got fig leaves added by later contributors, and likewise we whitewash or highlight itty little bits of articles, losing sight of the big picture. --Pete (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Grafitti is another good analogy. Are you saying recentism? It's a scourge, but we all engage in it to an extent - it is easier. That's why when I started making some big updates to JH and H Govt I started at the beginning. --Merbabu (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There may be recentism and rushing news elsewhere, but not Howard's Obama quote. It was made 2 years ago, and it's discussed in the media more than ever. Rudd's first-ever conversation with Obama, and Obama brought up the Howard quote for discussion. So it has certainly been on Obama's radar. The exact quote is not very long. The fact it's had such longevity shows that many people find it of interest.--Lester 11:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

While 2007 was recent in terms of Howard's PM'ship, the comment was a general one and not specifically about Obama. To "recentism" I'd add "headlineism". But, there's no need to continue to try and convince me of the merits of the Obama inclusion, I'm not about to remove it. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the Obama quote can be included provided context is included. Howard made the comment in support of the TROOP SURGE in Iraq which OBAMA OPPOSED. This is significant because most would probably now accept that the recent history of Iraq proved Howard right and Obama wrong in relation to supporting the TROOP SURGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.137.223 (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Retirement / Leadership section

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I've restored some material to this section. I've now discovered it was chopped in May 2008. Ironically, at the time, there was a suggestion to not do it while there was an edit war over the Obama quote (Talk:John Howard/Archive 11). How little things change.

Anyway, while I appreciate that the section was too long (and is maybe too long again), if it gets trimmed again I think these 3 facts (which I restored) should remain, even if as passing comments: (1) He didn't promise to see out his term in 2001 ("when I'm 64"); (2) he didn't promise to see out his term in 2004; (3) he said he would not see his term if re-elected in 2007. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with those 3 points. Ie, basic to the issue. I am reluctant though to continue reinstating old versions. Chances are there was good reason for it if it lasted this long. While I think this revert was fine we should only do it after considering the intent of the change. It gets hard after 6 months.cheers Merbabu (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a simple revert. I picked bits out of the old versions. Why did shortened version last so long? Probably because some editors (like me) gave up for a while due to edit wars. And the original shortened version wasn't done properly because it was in the middle of an edit war. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

ok. Cool. I can't imagine that these points are contentious. They're factual and elementary to the topic. --Merbabu (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't continually be so worried if every little fact is contentious. Instead, we should concern ourselves with factuality and accuracy. I support Peter Ballard restoring those facts about leadership.--Lester 09:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - warm and fuzzy hugs all 'round. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Trimming "Life after politics"

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

In February 2008, John Howard gave a speech to the Nigerian parliament on how to achieve economic prosperity.[3] In December 2008 Howard commented on Mumbai attacks by saying "I have no doubt the terrorists planned it to say to president-elect Obama: 'Don't you imagine because you're replacing President Bush who we despise that we're going to like you … we're not.'" and predicted that the fight against terrorism is going to be with us for a very long time into the future.[4]

I deleted the above sentences yesterday with the comment "rm Nigerian speech and Terrorism comment - I don't think we need to record every speech he gives, the general comment is fine". (The "general comment" refers to the preceding sentences, that he's signed up with a speech agency and what his speech titles are). It's been restored without comment. I'm deleting it again, but I'd appreciate thoughts on whether it's appropriate to do so. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

agreed. We're meant to create an article with a narrative not cobble together miscellaneous events and quotes. I was tempted to remove it myself but resisted.--Merbabu (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --Surturz (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The other quote on Mumbai attacks was added to show that Howard did not change his positions after retirement and also to add on his approach to Obama and of course it has got nothing to do with the general comment about him being available for political speeches at all but it seems nobody cares about that but about the trimming.--Avala (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect, it's not really news that John Howard hasn't changed his mind on something. As for the speech itself: It seems to me that he was due to give a speech (at a Hebrew University), the Mumbai attacks had just happened, so naturally Howard offered an opinion in his speech. As far as I can see, only the Australian Jewish News (who presumably had people at the Hebrew Univerity speech anyway) reported it.[5] It might be notable if the mainstream media picked it up, but the media didn't think it was very notable, so why should we? If Howard says something and it generates lots of news, then that's a different matter. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

We could usefully trim similar articles. Unless there is significant reaction to a post-politics speech (or an in-politics speech, for that matter) then we don't need to include it. Maybe if JH changed his mind on the republic thing, that'd be a speech worth including.

1985 Leadership contest

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

After Peacock resigned as leader in September 1985, Howard was elected leader by a very convincing margin, but it was not unopposed. Can anyone find or remember who he defeated in the leadership ballot? Peter Ballard (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. I also put the party room numbers in the article. Perhaps that was overdoing the detail. Feel free to remove the numbers, as long as we don't revert to the incorrect statement that it was unopposed. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Another county heard from

Latest comment: 15 years ago30 comments8 people in discussion

In a 2009 poll, he was voted as Australia's favorite prime minister since World War II.^[1]^[2]

Timeshift admits WP:RS but doesn't think this notable. Notability is for whether a person is included, not whether we include information within an existing bio. Political views aside, I think that this is worth discussing, rather than just edit-warring with a new editor and sniping at one another in edit summaries. --Pete (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Most interestingly, respondents were also asked to name their favourite prime minister since World War II, which produced a win for John Howard on 28 per cent. This is largely because those supporting Liberals (45 per cent of the total) showed no interest for contenders other than Howard and Bob Menzies (11 per cent), whereas the Labor loyalist vote was split between Kevin Rudd (20 per cent), Bob Hawke (12 per cent), Gough Whitlam (9 per cent) and Paul Keating (8 per cent).[6]

The point is, it's a poll without any authority or relevance. Timeshift (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly relevant to his time as Prime Minister, which is what our article is about, mostly. There's a naughty part of me wondering what your reaction might be if another PM had come out on top. You give an analysis of the numbers above, but whether a vote was from a Liberal or a Labor supporter was determined by who they voted for, not how they described themselves. So yes, JH wins in a valid poll. However, I see only three media outlets have picked up the story, and the sample size and methodology aren't much to sing about. --Pete (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, quite naughty. Should we search for all polls and put them on all PM pages? What importance or significance does this particular poll have exactly? Timeshift (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what this discussion would look like if it had said Howard was the most hated PM? But seriously - what concerns you about this poll's concerns authorit? It has over 1000 respondents and was undertaken by a data research company (see here for the methodology http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/Media/Essential_Report_190109.pdf). It's not Newspoll, but it's got almost the same sample size. As for lack of relevance, I can't possibly see how you could make that argument. What class of opinion poll is "notable enough" to be included in the article? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Most hated would fall in the same catagory. It is one of many polls. Why should one be published and not another? What significance or bearing does it have? Timeshift (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is your personal whim to consider it irrelevant because you seem to have a problem with this particular politician. On the other hand The Age, newspaper of record, considers it to be relevant enough for the news article. So it's you vs. the reliable external source and per all Wikipedia rules it's the external source that wins. As for the opinion poll sample, that is how they are done. They don't call each and every single voter. They have methods for this. They have methods to create a representative sample of the whole population. And finally if the approval polls are relevant enough to be in the lead section of the George W. Bush article and stay there for a long time, I don't see the point in claiming how it shouldn't be the case in here as well. It should be in the lead just like in that Bush article.--Avala (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother replying to that, what appauling lack of WP:AGF. Here's a bit of my own - your history of the Rudd/Medvedev image and the record-lasting insistance, with eventual defeat after unamimous agreement it didn't fit, clearly leaves you with an axe to grind with me. And thanks Merbabu for agreeing with my position that this poll isn't noteable. Timeshift (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've missed how that is a lack of good faith. OK, so he said word to the effect that "it's just your opinion" but that unfortunately seems to be quite a normal argument around oz pol. (although, i can't say I agree or are impressed by the post - i just don't understand how AGF comes into it (much less an appalling lack of AGF). --Merbabu (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My gut feeling is this isn't what benefits the encyclopedia. Seems trivial and gimmicky. But, I am open to anyone who can convince me otherwise. --Merbabu (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is quite important to show what is the opinion amongst the population. It's important to know if he was considered popular or not and I think the best time to run such a poll is when they are out of office so this poll is better than those other polls that could be out there that we haven't seen yet. For an example this is inside the lead on GWB "Bush was a popular president for much of his first term, peaking after the September 11 terrorist attacks when he received one of the highest approval rating–90%–of any president in American history to date. His popularity declined sharply during his second term, when he received one of the lowest approval ratings –19%– as well highest disapproval number –69%– in American history." That is the American type of opinion polling which goes throughout the term while what we have here is the overall opinion. As a reader I want to find out what do people of Australia think about this man in general and that poll and the information in the article suits my need. Now obviously some editors who are not impartial have a problem with the poll result but as a neutral reader I just want to find out the result not being bothered with it one way or another. It's just a piece of information for me while some here who have a history of editing which looked like staff editing (removing photo of the current Australian PM and the current President of Russia because...well I don't know why probably as not to show that there is any cooperation with the evil empire because reasons given were changing all the time, first it was lack of text to back the photo then when it was solved we had whatnot reasons from this same user, until we came to the core - that we just need to remove it altogether because, gee Rudd and Medvedev, that's not a good thing for PR) have that kind of unsubstantial problem with the information they dislike so they disguise it and claim there is some actual problem that can be found in Wiki rules. Again the same pattern of making up new issues appears here. First the source wasn't good, then when we get the very reliable source the problem is something else like the poll has no authority (ruled by a Wikipedian user) etc. Per all Wiki rules this can be included and is reliable and notable and only those who might have subjective view on the matter can say different.--Avala (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Using Wiki rules, this poll is relevant, well sourced, and adds information and interest to the article. I can't see any good reason to exclude it. Howard's place in the hearts and minds of the Australian people is something that is indisputably pertinent to this article. We should give the figures for first, second and third, so as not to mislead the readers. --Pete (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Skyring(Pete), in the past you've argued to exclude other information because it doesn't carry enough references. Why have a lower acceptance criteria for this piece of information? Opinion polls on any politician should only be mentioned if they are repeated across multiple polling agencies, and also show a pattern over a period of time. One time slice from one polling company does not demonstrate relevance.--Lester 20:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

While the inconstant standards of the left-wing editors are always amusing, in this instance I agree with them and think that opinion polls of this nature are ephemeral and inconsequential in an encyclopaedia article. In terms of wikilawyering, I would argue for exclusion based on WP:WEIGHT, rather than WP:RS or WP:N. The reference seemingly fulfils these last two. There are, however, ample quotations of various polls and election results extant in the article which already establish Howard's popularity. --Surturz (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight to the death over this one. I wanted some reasonable discussion rather than Timeshift edit-warring with a good faith contributor. Looks like overall popularity roughly equates to number of elections won. What bothers me is the way editors line up to keep the biographies of their team players sweet, and those on the opposing team as full of bile as possible, whilst staying within accepted wikipractice. I understand why they do this, but we should be above this.--Pete (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The lack of good faith is disturbing. Timeshift (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If you want to edit-war with a new contributor - hence the title of this section - try a bit of good faith before hitting the revert button with a snarky comment. Please. --Pete (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, hypocrisy destroys good faith, but I'm sure you know that. --Surturz (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, to include it on its own would look out of place and contrived (like Howard fanboys putting in a good poll for the hell of it). However I do believe it supports a well reported theme which is that Howard was very well liked during his term (as argued by Pete). How about it be used as supporting evidence for the claim of wide popularity? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I like your general thinking here; i called it "gimmicky", but "contrived" probably sums it up better. It does support a well-reported theme, but I also have my doubts about the reliability of the method/poll (which is different to the reliability of the sources reporting it with which I have no problem). Also, as a concept it is fundamentally flawed - how can there be in 2009 a poll that accurately compares people's opinions of, say for example, Menzies, Hawke, and Howard. Ie, it's not just the method of the poll, but the whole concept is flawed. On balance, I think this shouldn't be here as it currently stands. Perhaps better would be a discussion of polling for the Prime Minister. It comes in every now and then but it is underdeveloped. Does anyone know of an easy source showing the polling of the PM over the 11 years? --Merbabu (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think "popularity" of Prime Ministers is a bit moot, since they must always go to the elections every few years, survive party room ballots slightly more often than that - a genuinely unpopular person couldn't stay PM for long. Also, a PM's popularity is always measured in comparison to the Leader of the Opposition. More informative is the nature of their electoral appeal. Hawke's common touch, Howard's use of talkback, Keating's verbal wit etc - this is what we should be writing about, not opinion polls. Generally a PM will be "popular" in some sense, up until the last few months/years before losing office. --Surturz (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Am i thus correct in saying that Yeti Hunter, Surturz, and myself are suggesting that while the general theme it supports is OK, inclusion of the news item is flawed (to some extent), and that we'd be better off using official polling - such as Gallop, etc? --Merbabu (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's got it. Nobody's making loud noises over this one. Everyone's had an opportunity to speak. I'm concerned about Timeshift edit-warring with a new contributor, rather than discussing it, but that's par for the course around here. Which reminds me. Whatever happened to that war crimes thing. Way some people were talking, JH was about to be hauled off to The Hague any moment, but I don't think that happened. --Pete (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Which by the way I never argued for. Your parochial holier-than-thou, not to mention contradictory attitude of late is rather disturbing Skyring. Timeshift (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the key then is for all of us to stop commenting on other editors, and focus on the content at hand. Yes, it's been said before, we're all hypocritical on this point to some extent, but there's always value in saying it again. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think, Pete, that it's important to note that *everyone* here in this dispute actually agreed with you on the "war crimes" thing. The editors pushing that particular barrow are not in this discussion, so it's probably not the best choice of "controversial issue" to highlight. Orderinchaos 11:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Merbabu. Including the poll would be undue WP:WEIGHT. Nature of Howard's popularity is worthy of inclusion; fluctuations in his popularity should be described using more reputable polls such as newspoll or gallup. --Surturz (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how any of you can actually think that you are the ones deciding which polls are reputable and which are not. It's beyond original research, it's beyond ridiculous actually. If you put yourself above such papers as newspapers of record and still think you are editing in good faith, neutrally and that your edits are verifiable and notable you are wrong. It's not my intention to fight with anyone but Wikipedia has it's rules which don't allow anyone to publish unsourced things here nor to remove the already added information that is well sourced (like here). What makes me sure that I am right is the fact that the user that's the loudest assumes an absurd claim for the sake of argument, for the sake of removing the thing he doesn't like. When this is pointed out he says we are not assuming good faith. Well I am sorry but you can't defend with that every time. I went through this and the current PM of Australia talk pages and noticed the pattern of vigorous fighting to include the most negative things in this article and keep the positive things out and vice versa in the other article. We can't assume gf after so many cases of the same non neutral behaviour that is actually harming the overall project.--Avala (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If the wikipedia community feels a certain way, then so be it... though I realise you may fail to understand this considering how much you pushed the Rudd/Medvedev image issue. Newspoll is the poll of polls, I think it should be used as the polling reference, and others agree. Timeshift (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Can it be shown that there are other major newspapers polling Howard's popularity since he left office? My criteria for inclusion is to show multiple sources for the fact you want to include, and to show it over a period of time. If there's only a single one-off reference, it probably demonstrates that there is little public interest in it.--Lester 01:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

References

^ "Australians still love Howard: poll". The Age. 2009-01-19. Retrieved 2009-01-25.
^ "John Howard Is PM No.1". OneIndia. Retrieved 2009-01-25.

Remove unsafe link